In Defense of the Electoral College

Rod Williams: If this becomes the platform
 of the Democratic Party, I may vote for Trump's
anointed successor.

by Michael Dioguardi, Nov. 7, 2025- Regarding the direct election of presidents, few ideas are worse for liberty.

 Most presidential systems outside the U.S. lack the federalist counterweight built into our design. In Africa and South America, presidentialism often combines:

• Direct popular election of the president, granting an immediate “national mandate.”

• Weak or centralized legislatures, often subordinated to the executive.

• Unitary states, where regional governments have little independent standing.

This creates the classic pattern: a directly elected president becomes the singular embodiment of the people’s will, while regional or legislative bodies cannot resist. From there, authoritarian drift is inevitable.

By contrast, the U.S. avoided this trap, at least historically, because:

1. Electoral College Federalism – The president is not elected by a national plebiscite but through the states. This means he governs by consent of the states as political communities, not just an atomized mass of voters.

2. State Sovereignty – The states retain constitutional standing and power, acting as rivals and checks on the central government.

3. Senate (originally) – Chosen by state legislatures, it reinforced the role of states as guardians of federal balance.

4. Fragmented Power – Separation of powers and staggered elections made it very difficult for one faction to control all levers of government at once.

So yes, the Electoral College is not just an “antiquated system” or “undemocratic” (as some critics charge) but a structural safeguard unique to American presidentialism, tempering the dangers of direct mandate.

In a way, this makes the U.S. a hybrid: presidential in form, but with federalist brakes that blunt the concentration of power. That is probably why, unlike so many other presidential systems, the U.S. has not already collapsed into caudillismo or outright dictatorship.

No amount of rhetoric about “majoritarian fairness” or “true democracy” changes the fact that liberty becomes contingent on the whims of electoral outcomes.

Advocates of direct national election are not merely proposing a procedural change. They are actively proposing a structural weakening of liberty. Their claims of “democracy” are rhetorical cover for what is essentially a power grab, and history shows that the concentration of power under the guise of popular mandate inevitably backfires, often against those who initially supported it.

In short: democracy without counterweights is not liberty. It is majority rule that can quickly become coercive.

Top Stories