9.12 Myths about Mob Rule, Demagogues, and Tyranny of the Majority

This myth apparently originates from the failure (by some) to realize that the American people cast votes for President in 100% of the states, and that they have done so in all the states since 1880.[345]

If anyone is inclined to use the term “mob” to characterize the American electorate, it is a long-settled fact that the mob rules in American presidential elections.

The issue presented by the National Popular Vote Compact is not whether the “mob” will rule in presidential elections, but whether the mob’s votes will be tallied on a state-by-state basis versus a nationwide basis.

The National Popular Vote Compact is concerned with the relative importance of popular votes cast in different states for presidential electors. Under the current system, presidential candidates concentrate their attention in the general-election campaign on voters in a handful of closely divided battleground states, while ignoring voters in the remaining states.

The Compact would address this shortcoming of the current system by making every vote equally important in every state in every presidential election.

Thus, the issue presented by the National Popular Vote proposal is not whether the mob will rule but whether the mob in a dozen-or-so battleground states should be more important than the mob in the remaining states.

Footnotes

This myth apparently originates from the failure (by some) to realize that the Electoral College has never acted as a buffer against popular passions.

It is true that the Founding Fathers envisioned that the Electoral College would consist of “wise men” (and they meant men) who would deliberate on the choice of the President and “judiciously” select the best candidate for the office.

As John Jay (the presumed author of Federalist No. 64) wrote in 1788:

“As the select assemblies for choosing the President … will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtues.”[346] [Emphasis added]

As Alexander Hamilton (the presumed author of Federalist No. 68) wrote in 1788:

“[T]he immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”[347] [Emphasis added]

The vision of the Founding Fathers for a deliberative Electoral College was never realized in practice—primarily because the Founders did not anticipate the emergence of political parties.

In the nation’s first two presidential elections (1789 and 1792), the Electoral College did not act as a deliberative body or as a buffer against popular passions. Instead, it acted in harmony with the virtually unanimous nationwide consensus favoring George Washington as President.

As soon as George Washington announced that he would not run for a third term as President in 1796, a competition for power emerged between two parties holding opposing views about how the country should be governed.

As a result, in 1796, the Federalists and the Republicans nominated presidential candidates at caucuses composed of each party’s members of Congress.

Given that the President and Vice President were to be elected by the Electoral College, as soon as there were centrally designated nominees, each party presented the public with its list of candidates for presidential elector. These elector candidates made it known that they intended to act as willing rubber stamps for their party’s nominees. They made their intentions known by means of advertisements in newspapers, public statements, and having their names appear on their party’s printed lists of elector candidates.

In short, neither party wanted the Electoral College to act as a deliberative body in 1796, because each wanted to elect their nominees for President and Vice President (section 2.5).

Since the emergence of political parties in 1796, members of the Electoral College have almost always voted for the nominees determined by the nominating caucus or convention of their political party (section 3.7).

That is, the Electoral College does not, as a practical matter, act as a deliberative body or as a buffer against popular passions.

There is no reason to think that the Electoral College would ever operate as a buffer against the winner of a presidential election—regardless of whether presidential electors are elected on the basis of the state-by-state winner-take-all rule or the national popular vote.

Footnotes

A Georgia state legislator wrote one of his constituents in 2023:

“The reason for the creation of the Electoral College by our founding fathers and its inclusion in the constitution is to have a means of preventing a populist ‘man on a horse,’ who makes wild appeals to the emotions of the voters of the nation from becoming the President of the United States. It is a safeguard that our founders felt to be most important. I agree with them.”[348]

There is nothing about the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes that favors or impedes demagogues.

Presidential electors are loyal supporters of the nominee of their political party.

There is no reason to think that presidential electors nominated by a demagogue’s political party would be less loyal to their party’s nominee than a presidential elector representing a non-demagogic candidate. If anything, presidential electors nominated by a demagogue’s party would probably likely be more fiercely loyal to their candidate.

Thus, it is unlikely that the current Electoral College system could prevent a demagogue from being elected President—regardless of whether votes for presidential elector are tallied on the basis of the state-by-state winner-take-all rule or on the basis of the total nationwide popular vote.

The National Popular Vote Compact would not abolish the position of presidential elector or the Electoral College. Thus, there would be no reduction in whatever protection (if indeed there is any) that the current structure of the Electoral College might offer in terms of preventing a demagogue from coming to power.

It is certainly conceivable that a majority of the voters might, at some time in the future, support a demagogue for President of the United States. However, if they were to do so, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College or winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes would save the voters from themselves.

Likewise, there is no reason to think that a nationwide popular vote would necessarily save the voters from themselves.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the voters to ensure that no demagogue becomes President of the United States.

Footnotes

It is sometimes asserted that Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany as a result of a national popular vote and that the Electoral College method of electing the President would prevent a similar demagogue from coming to power in the United States.[349]

Adolf Hitler did not come to power in Germany as a result of a national popular vote. In fact, Hitler was rejected by almost a two-to-one nationwide popular vote margin when he ran for the presidency of the Weimar Republic in 1932.

Specifically, in the March 13, 1932, election for President, the results were:

• Hindenburg (the incumbent)—49.6%
• Hitler (National Socialist)—30.1%
• Thälmann (Communist)—13.2%
• Duesterberg (Nationalist)—6.8%.[350]

Because President Hindenburg did not receive an absolute majority of the votes, a run-off was held on April 10, 1932, among the top three candidates. The results of the run-off were:

• Hindenburg (the incumbent)—53.0%
• Hitler (National Socialist)—36.8%
• Thälmann (Communist)—10.2%.

On July 31, 1932, parliamentary elections were held in Germany. At that time, Hitler’s National Socialist Party won the largest number of seats in the Reichstag (230 out of 608); however, these 230 seats were far from a parliamentary majority.

On November 6, 1932, another parliamentary election was held, and Hitler’s party lost ground. Its number of seats was reduced to 196 seats out of 608 in the Reichstag.

Despite the voters’ rejection of Hitler in the April 1932 presidential election, despite their rejection of his party in the July 1932 parliamentary elections, and despite the decline of his party in the November 1932 parliamentary elections, a backroom political deal was orchestrated in January 1933 by power brokers who (quite mistakenly) thought they could control Hitler.

As part of this deal, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933.

Once in power as Chancellor, Hitler quickly used his position (and, in particular, the control over the police that he acquired as part of the deal) to establish a one-party dictatorship in Germany.

Footnotes

Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation has written:

“The U.S. election system addresses the Founders’ fears of a ‘tyranny of the majority,’ a topic frequently discussed in the Federalist Papers. In the eyes of the Founders, this tyranny was as dangerous as the risks posed by despots like King George.”[351]

State winner-take-all statutes enable a mere plurality of voters in each state to control 100% of a state’s electoral vote, thereby extinguishing the voice of all the other voters in a state.

Suppressing the voice of a state’s minority is, by definition, an example of “tyranny of the majority.” The state-by-state winner-take-all rule does not prevent a “tyranny of the majority” but instead is an example of it.

In 1824, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said the following about the winner-take-all rule in a Senate speech:

“The general ticket system, now existing in 10 States was the offspring of policy, and not of any disposition to give fair play to the will of the people. It was adopted by the leading men of those States, to enable them to consolidate the vote of the State. … The rights of minorities are violated because a majority of one will carry the vote of the whole State. … This is … a case … of votes taken away, added to those of the majority, and given to a person to whom the minority is opposed.”[352] [Emphasis added]

The winner-take-all rule treats all the voters who did not vote for the first-place candidate as if they had voted for the first-place candidate.

In each of the six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020, the current system prevented 44% to 46% of the nation’s voters from helping their candidate in the decisive stage of the selection process—that is, in the Electoral College. For example, in 2020, the winner-take-all rule resulted in 68,942,639 voters being zeroed out at the state level—44% out of the nation’s 158,224,999 voters. This issue is discussed in greater detail in section 1.7.

Five elections in which the second-place candidate became President

If the winner-take-all rule protects the nation against a “tyranny of the majority,” it would be appropriate to inquire as to what specific threat of “tyranny” was posed by the first-place candidate in the five elections in which the Electoral College has elevated the second-place candidate (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016).

What “tyranny” did the winner-take-all rule prevent by not giving the White House to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide in 1888 (Grover Cleveland) and instead installing the second-place candidate (Benjamin Harrison)?

If Andrew Jackson presented the threat of “tyranny” in 1824 (when the Electoral College system denied him the presidency), why did he not present an equal threat in 1828 and 1832 (when he was elected by the Electoral College)?

Constitutional protections against tyranny of the majority

The U.S. Constitution provides multiple protections against a “tyranny of the majority.”

First, there are numerous protections of individual rights contained in specific clauses of the Constitution, such as the prohibition of ex post facto laws, prohibition of bills of attainder (i.e., legislative acts that impose criminal penalties on named individuals), and prohibition on religious tests for office. Numerous additional protections were added by the Bill of Rights.

Second, an independent judiciary provides significant protection against “tyranny of the majority.”

Third, the division of the federal government into three independent branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) provides additional protection against a “tyranny of the majority.”

Fourth, additional protection comes from the fact that the United States is a “compound republic” in which governmental power is divided between two distinct levels of government—state and national. James Madison explained the concept of a “compound republic” in Federalist No. 51:

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”[353] [Emphasis added]

In the words of President Theodore Roosevelt:

“If the minority is as powerful as the majority, there is no use of having political contests at all, for there is no use in having a majority.”[354]

Footnotes