Wonderess's Depository of Academic Essays

[Wonderess]

Representing the Community Electorally

No voter in the history of the United States has ever voted for president. Instead, every vote has been cast for an individual known as an elector who then votes for president. The group of these electors together are known as the Electoral College. The political intrigue that causes a presidential candidate to visit the same few states such as Ohio and Florida election cycle after election cycle is fueled by the current function of the Electoral College. This function allocates to each state a number of electoral votes awarded in proportion to the state’s population. Forty-eight of these states along with the District of Columbia award all of their votes to the overall winner of the popular vote in that state or district. The states of Maine and Nebraska split their votes depending on which candidate wins particular congressional districts. With all of this considered, there are various arguments as to what the future of this process and use of the Electoral College should be. Some favor a complete removal of the Electoral College as an electoral system while others favor changing its function to better represent the will of the people. An important question that is evaluative of the discourse concerning the Electoral College is whether the voice of the individual or the community should be the primary voice that the presidential candidate campaigns to represent. The Electoral College should remain in place, but the individual states should allocate their votes based on the congressional districts instead of the winner of the state taking all electoral votes so that the voice of the constituent American communities may be represented and not strictly the voice of the individual or the voice of a state as a whole.

One modern stance regarding the future of the Electoral College favors its absolute dissolution. The call for the college’s removal is usually based on a position that favors using the national popular vote as the only means for electing the president. Matthew J. Streb presents a standard argument against the Electoral College in favor of the sole use of the national popular vote to elect the president. “The Electoral College is inconsistent with the cherished principle of ‘one person, one vote.’ Under the Electoral College, not everyone’s vote counts equally on a national level” (141). His analysis has merit as demonstrated in the following example. Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District is projected to contain “536,871” people according to the United States Census Bureau’s 2016 projections while New York’s 16th Congressional District is projected to contain “736,806” people (My Congressional District). Even though these two districts have varying population numbers, they are still represented by one electoral vote each. Even though the representation for each district is equal, a single vote in the New York district is weaker because of the number of fellow voters that a citizen has to compete with in contrast to the smaller population of the Rhode Island district. This is factually based, however, the popular vote argument assumes that the one person, one vote mentality is the most valid position. There is room to disagree.

Making the popular vote the deciding principle of presidential elections disregards the importance of the concerns and ideas of the multitude of communities that make up The United States. This can be observed at a large scale on the state level. The Electoral College as it functions currently in 48 states and the District of Columbia favors the state community above all other viewpoints including the one person, one vote ideal and the one community, one vote ideal. James R. Stoner Jr. speaks on this emphasis of the state as a communal collective and why the Electoral College favors it. “By tallying votes for the highest office of the land by state, even giving each state a sort of bonus for being organized as a state, the Electoral College affirms the importance of these self-governing communities and helps secure their interest in self government” (51). Every state having its own legislature and political system acts as a microcosm of the nation as a whole which speaks to Stoner’s point on self government. These microcosms having their own various problems, strengths, and identities represent the collective points of view of a slice of the American electorate known as a state. The current function of the Electoral College preserves the importance of a state’s voice as a whole. Daniel Patrick Moynihan mentions the American tradition of concurrent or coexisting majorities and how the Electoral College is no different:

All through our system we find majorities at work, but they have to be at work simultaneously… The concurrent majority is required between the House of Representatives, based upon the direct election of the people, and a majority in the U. S. Senate. It is a majority of the states that counts in this body, not the majority of the population, per se. (91)

This is to say that the Electoral College seeks to create a representative majority in the same tradition as congress does and the college has fulfilled this roll since the establishment of the Constitution. However, states contain within them smaller and more diverse communities that deserve to be represented with the local level being the unit of government closest to the people which the current electoral system overlooks.

In order to understand the importance of the community in respect to electoral democracy, it is helpful to look backward to the Ancient Greek understanding of the polis. Greg Anderson provides a definition that is generally used by scholars today. Anderson gives a definition of the polis as “a unique, category-defying formation that was somehow both ‘state ‘ and ‘society’ simultaneously, a kind of inseparable fusion of the two” (2). The United States is vastly larger than Ancient Greece in geographic size and population. Though unlike Ancient Greece, the United States has varying degrees of government that include the federal, state, and local level. It is the local level of government that can be compared to the ancient polis. The many locales of America have their own history, culture, and general understandings about the functioning of the community structure. The local communities of America should collectively act as the deciding force in presidential elections because of their closer representation of the people that is unmatched by the state and federal levels. The national popular vote generalizes the United States as one macro-community which does not take into consideration the more nuanced and specific concerns of each area of the country which embodies the polis concept. The current use of the Electoral College in every state besides Nebraska and Maine take communal interest into account on the state level, but even states have a variety of communities and values within them that are at risk of being overpowered by a popular majority. It is necessary to further evaluate the shortcomings of these two systems in order to better understand the strengths of an electoral system centered on the needs of the various American communities.

The use of the popular vote as the decider of presidential elections is not the best way forward for the electoral process of the president though it is understandable that such a view has become popular due to the results of the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections. In these two instances the candidate elected by the Electoral College has lost the popular vote (Leip). The Electoral College avoids a scenario where a candidate clinches the popular vote but could act in a way that would create a tyranny of the majority. Having 49% of a nation vote for a candidate that did not obtain the presidency presents a problem of lack in confidence and general partisan division. The Electoral College in its current form minimizes this through the indirect allocation of electoral votes by allowing a state to choose a presidential candidate in a more locally centered contest than a national popular vote. Florida has a modern pattern of being closely divided in presidential elections and most especially in the election of 2000. However, a close race in Florida is more containable and localized than a close race nationwide which has the potential to be overwhelmingly destructive to the country’s stability. It would be difficult to imagine the lawsuits and political conflict of Florida in 2000 occurring on a national scale. There is a modern movement that favors the national popular vote means of election known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that functions by bypassing the Electoral College’s intended role. The compact includes a number of states that usually lean toward the Democratic Party in elections. Each state has pledged to give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote regardless of the outcome within the state itself. However, the compact does not take effect until a collection of states containing a majority of electoral votes have signed it. If enough states joined the compact, the Electoral College would no longer function in its current form and effectively make the United States electoral system a popular system. The problem with the compact is that it wishes to remove the influence of the current electoral system without amending the United States Constitution which would be the only way to officially alter or remove the Electoral College at the federal level. Also, the vote of citizens in states that are part of the compact would not matter if the compact ever was put into effect. California as a member would give its electoral votes to the winner of the national vote regardless of the opinion of its people. This may infringe on the civil rights of California’s citizens since the deciding factor of California’s vote allocation is dependent on factors outside of the state such as how other states voted. The popular vote strategy does not take into account the voice of communities like the current state centric form does, but the state form has problems of its own.

The current Electoral College system gives each state a voice that is proportionate to its size. Yet as seen in modern elections, there are still problems. In regard to campaigning, some states become neglected because of their difficulty in swinging to different parties from one election to another. As an example, Doran R. Shaw records that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the two Republican candidates, visited Louisiana a total of five times during the 2000 campaign (Appendix 1). Louisiana had voted for Democrat Bill Clinton in the previous election, but the state had the potential to swing to the Republican Party in 2000, and it did. In 2004 Cheney visited Louisiana just one time while Bush never campaigned in the state. Louisiana was considered unflippable in 2004 and therefore did not receive nearly as much attention. This creates a monopoly of campaigning in states that are consistently capable of switching parties from election to election. These states are referred to as swing states. Modern examples include Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Iowa. Even among these examples, Florida and Pennsylvania are more likely to get significant attention than Iowa because their Electoral Vote Count is much higher than Iowa. The current system allows candidates to ignore the majority of the country and ultimately focus on just ten or twelve states. This is not to say that the candidates are sinisterly choosing to ignore uncompetitive states. Campaign strategy calls for careful consideration when choosing a path forward as a presidential candidate. “A campaign has limited resources… so a smart campaign should allocate its resources in those states crucial to a minimum winning coalition” (Shaw 44). It is the electoral college’s structure as it now stands that forces candidates to focus on states that will produce the best results with the least amount of resources or money. Therefore, the fact that the current electoral structure is superior to the popular vote method in representing the communal aspect of the people’s choice does not hide its limits such as its favoring of swing states. There is another way forward that strengthens the communal aspect further and weakens the established campaigning bias. This is the allocation of electoral votes by congressional district.

The use of the congressional district method is superior to the current commonly used form and the popular vote system. The congressional district is currently the smallest division used for the purpose of representation on the federal level. Deciding the allocation of electoral votes based on the leanings of the 435 congressional districts in the United States would shift the emphasis of presidential campaigning as explained by Robert C. Turner. “By awarding electoral

college votes on the basis of district rather than state-level votes, the district system would encourage presidential campaigns to focus their efforts on battleground districts instead of battleground states” (Turner 117). This change in emphasis forces candidates to campaign in individual districts that are in all parts of the country and not limited to a small number of states. Also, campaigning in one district provides less swing because to influence a district is to gain one electoral vote and not the electoral votes of an entire state. It is necessary to point out another mechanism of this electoral system. Nebraska has five electoral votes in all yet the state only has three congressional districts. The other two votes represent the two senators that represent Nebraska in the senate. Every state has two extra electoral votes added to the number of their congressional districts for this reason. Maine and Nebraska currently award those two electoral votes to the winner of the state’s popular vote. In this model, the voice of the larger community that is the state is still merited though not absolute unlike the current system used in the 48 other states and the District of Columbia. The allocation of electoral votes by congressional district allow the communal voices of America to speak their opinion through the medium of voting regardless of the overall leaning of the state. Despite California’s favoritism of the Democratic Party, the state still contains electoral districts that usually vote for the Republican candidate. These districts can still have a voice by rewarding their electoral votes to the candidate they favor while the remaining electoral districts can do the same. The same holds for Republican leaning states that contain traditionally Democratic districts. Just as every electoral plan has positives, there are always weaknesses as well.

One common problem with the congressional district system of presidential elections is the inaccuracy of the result due to gerrymandering. Through the process of gerrymandering, a majority of state legislatures have the ability to indirectly decide the partisan leaning of a congressional district by drawing it with party membership, racial demographics, and socioeconomics in mind. Some states have attempted to solve this problem using computer programs or what are colloquially called “non-partisan committees.” The problem with these solutions is that computers are unable to use human intuition to know what constitutes a community. A computer program seeking to create districts that were as contiguous as possible would overlook cultural lines that may be better indicators of district drawing than simply contiguity. As for “non-partisan committees,” it is hard to have a body of people completely void of bias or partisan favorability. Also, if such a committee were trying to avoid gerrymandering, then it could avoid important solutions to ensure the representation of minorities. Current examples include Louisiana’s 2nd congressional district and Florida’s 5th congressional district. Both are severely gerrymandered to include certain sections of metropolitan areas. The Louisiana district has a majority African American population while the Florida district contains a plurality of African Americans which means that the demographic is the largest population by race though not an absolute majority (United States Census). It would be possible in Louisiana to draw the districts so that there are no minority majority districts and no majorities that favor a candidate of the Democratic Party. This would cause a significant underrepresentation of Louisiana’s demographic makeup. The current 2nd congressional district actually serves as a seat of representation for Louisiana’s minorities in the southern portion of the state. In Florida, both Tallahassee and Jacksonville are surrounded by Republican leaning populations which would make it difficult to provide representation for the minority population there as well. If a congressional district was to include Duval County, where Jacksonville is located, and perhaps portions of neighboring Nassau and St. Johns counties, this would create a political conflict fueled by partisan leanings. The minority population in Jacksonville would be pitted against the Republican leaning population in Duval, Nassau, and St. Johns counties. Therefore, in these situations the gerrymandering of a partisan and safe district holds merit by allowing continuous representation. The best solution to the problem of gerrymandering is using the legal system. Pennsylvania and Florida have both had their districts redrawn by the state court systems in order to ensure fairer representation. This allows each instance of gerrymandering to be addressed in a case by case basis that avoids slapdash district drawing and more partisan disagreements over the redrawing process. However, the issue of gerrymandering can still be related to the issue of a correlation between the results of a state’s congressional districts versus the state popular vote.

There is a possibility of a candidate winning the majority of electoral votes in a state without winning the popular vote under the congressional district system. This seems an unlikely scenario due to this never occurring in the modern era in the current states that use the method: Maine and Nebraska. Yet there is still a possibility:

With 4 and 5 electoral votes for Maine and Nebraska and the typical scenario of two viable candidates, there will never be inconsistency between the preferences of the voters of the state and the allocation of electoral votes. However, for larger states with more electoral votes, the inconsistency problem may arise where the majority of citizens vote for one candidate while the majority of electoral votes go to another candidate. (Fon 132)

Fon points out that it is possible for states like New York that usually have the heavily lopsided favoring of one candidate within multiple urban districts to result in the popular vote winner of the state not winning a majority of congressional districts. This would be a very improbable case due to the added two electoral votes that would be awarded to the popular vote winner which would buffer the electoral vote strength of the popular vote winner. A candidate who lost the popular vote would therefore have to win three more congressional districts than the popular vote winner which would not be an easy feat. Looking at this issue from a perspective of electoral emphasis, this issue of popular vote versus electoral vote only becomes a problem if the one person, one vote mentality is the ideal. A mentality that favors the representation of community over the individual would not find such a problem with an inconsistency between the popular and electoral votes. Along with the question of whether the citizen’s voice is being well represented in presidential elections, there is the issue of security which the congressional district method shows strength in.

A modern discussion of elections include the issue of security and the possibility of meddling that may be orchestrated by foreign powers. The countrywide adoption of the congressional district method would significantly decrease the influence of vote tampering. “Under the district system, the incentive for electoral mischief is much lower because the most electoral votes that can possibly be changed would be three (one for the district and two for the state)” (Turner 133). As a further explanation of Turner’s point, if a foreign national wished to influence the electoral result of North Carolina in the current electoral system, a tampering operation in Raleigh could decide the fate of the state’s 15 electoral votes. Under the congressional district system the foreign national would need to work in various parts of the city to influence just one or two electoral votes. This makes the act of foreign electoral meddling less effective in its ability to alter the overall election result.

Overall, the congressional district electoral system is the most efficient response to the current weaknesses of the Electoral College. This path forward is a better solution than the various popular vote solutions because it does not require a direct removal of the Electoral College by needing an amendment to the constitution and instead focuses on the state’s right to allocate its electoral votes in any way its people see fit. Also, the congressional district model focuses on the voice of community rather than the voice of the simple majority which is better because it discourages rampant individualism and the necessity of focusing on areas of the country with significant populations such as the Northeast Corridor, the Los Angles Metropolitan Area, and the Interstate 4 Corridor in Florida. The congressional district system is also an improvement over the current model used by a majority of states which utilizes the winner take all electoral vote method. The district model improves on the security of the present model by making elections harder to rig. The district method overall provides representation for the constituent communities of the states while also keeping two electoral votes reserved for the winner of the state to acknowledge the statewide community. The discussion of the Electoral College’s future will continue for election cycles to come. The hope is that such discourse may produce action and a betterment of the presidential election process so that the relationship between the local community and the executive might only be strengthened.



Works Cited

Anderson, Greg. “The Personality of the Greek State.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. 129, 2009, pp. 1-22. Accessed 20 May 2009.

Fon, Vincy. “Integral Proportional System: Aligning Electoral Votes More Closely with State Popular Votes.” Supreme Court Economic Review, vol. 16, no. 1, 2008, pp. 127-157. Accessed 23 April 2018.

Leip, David. Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Accessed 23 April 2018.

Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. “The Electoral College and the Uniqueness of America.” Securing Democracy, edited by Gary L. Gregg II, ISI Books, 2001, 87-102.

Shaw, Daron R. The Race to 270. Chicago, The University of Chicago, 2006.

Stoner Jr., James R. “Federalism, the States, and the Electoral College.” Securing Democracy, edited by Gary L. Gregg II, ISI Books, 2001, 43-54.

Streb, Matthew J. Rethinking American Electoral Democracy. New York, Routledge, 2008.

Turner, Robert C. “‘The Contemporary Presidency’: Do Nebraska and Maine Have the Right Idea? The Political and Partisan Implications of the District System.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, 2005, pp. 116-137. Accessed 23 April 2018.

“My Congressional District.” United States Census Bureau. Accessed 21 April 2018.

 

[Wonderess]

An Understanding of Sacred Realism​

Among the various aspects of human existence, the sacred reality stands apart. There is a drive in the human person to see beyond what is apparent and present at any given time whether that be through theology, hope, or a sort of idealism. All of these things focus on concepts and realities that are not commonplace or seen as normal. Articles of the sacred are set apart ideas and objects for the sake of some special or profound purpose. This otherness of the sacred must come forth from some origin before it can be understood in context of individual and community and then the human response to the sacred.

Sanctity itself must have some stable origin in order to be constituted in the world. The nature of the sacred is one of a pulling upward. It is active and not merely static in its nature. Through the experience or contemplation of sacred things the human person is being drawn to the Divine sometimes gradually over time and sometimes suddenly. This is to say that truly sacred things are not defined by culture or people but rather instituted by God. Because God is an active agent in the existence of the sacred, it must then be independent from human thought and desire initially even though through experiencing the sacred one’s will acts in response to it after the sacred is present. This is to say that there is false sanctity. A group that holds a murder ritual as sacred as an example may have elements that emulate a sacred environment, but in reality it is merely a facsimile. What is true versus false sanctity is a question for philo-theological thought. The human condition has a drive and capability to experience and respond to what is of God or the sacred. This capability then can be misled by the facsimile, but through careful discernment one can then come to know what is truly sacred. Sanctity is transmitted from transcendent abstract realities into symbolic objects, actions, and words. A Christian example would be the idea of life being sacred as a gift from God. The water of baptism symbolizing new life is sacred because of this connection as well as its sacramental qualities where God changes the person through the pouring of water. So life, the action of God, and the action of pouring the water because of these realities are all sacred. The sacredness is derived from the value of life and the action of God which transfers sacredness to the water being used in that way to baptize a person. Next there must be an understanding of how this functions in a community and for a people.

Once God has provided invitation to humanity through the sacred revelation or the state of nature, there must be some sort of understanding of the sacred in order for there to be right response. The religions of the world are examples of systems that attempt to understand the nature of the sacred and then apply it to the human condition. There is a first understanding that there is great importance and gravity to sanctity and then how that manifests itself is then overtime developed through revelation and reasoning. It is through collaboration and dialogue that such understanding comes forward. The sacred is firstly a communal affair. The Divine comes to the human people as one with no imbalance between one and other in regard to the nature of the invitation. Everyone is equally invited. Therefore understanding the scared must be collaborative and a pursuit with the other rather than for self alone or against the other. Understandings of the world and new things that come about through time aid in making more clear the human understanding of things sacred and of God.

After communal collaboration creates a foundational understanding of the place and importance of the sacred, it can then be responded to through affirmation and participation. This is when the concept of holiness comes into play. With the person evaluating their own gifts, talents, interests, and life situation they can come to understand and choose how they particularly are going to pursue the sacred. This also includes what might an emphasis be. It could be humanitarian aid in order to uphold the sacredness of every human life including the disadvantaged. It could also be a dedication to some person that they found exemplified holiness which they wish to imitate. Holiness is the personal openness and response to the sacred that is full. The sacred is what is being pursued and the holy is that which is pursuing. Perfect holiness is the full and absolute response of the person to God through action, word, and thought. The pursuit of the sacred and furthermore God is deliberative and fully a choice of the person though it can have different version depending on background and culture in which one lives.

The process of coming to know what is from God and what is sacred is a process that occurs in three stages. The first stage is the manifestation of the sacred in reality which is possible through the will of God. This comes through thought or revelation which is divine intervention. Then the people must come to better understand this revelation and invitation of God so that a deliberative choice of acceptance or rejection can be made by the individual. Finally the response of the person to the sacred is made either to pursue or reject through a choice of free will. Sanctity is a sort of beacon or lighthouse that guides the human person to its end and purpose. It is the means by which God comes to meet the human soul so that they may live rightly, happily, and truly as they were meant to.

 

[Pallaith]

Well at long last I took a stab at reading this and taking it to task.

Representing the Community Electorally

No voter in the history of the United States has ever voted for president. Instead, every vote has been cast for an individual known as an elector who then votes for president. The group of these electors together are known as the Electoral College. The political intrigue that causes a presidential candidate to visit the same few states such as Ohio and Florida election cycle after election cycle is fueled by the current function of the Electoral College. This function allocates to each state a number of electoral votes awarded in proportion to the state’s population. Forty-eight of these states along with the District of Columbia award all of their votes to the overall winner of the popular vote in that state or district. The states of Maine and Nebraska split their votes depending on which candidate wins particular congressional districts.

I want to highlight your comment about candidates visiting the same few states because it's very relevant later and a huge reason why your argument is fatally flawed from the start. This right here suggests that a handful of communities determine the outcome regardless of what all the other communities in the country have to say. This also emphasizes disparate localities instead of considering the country as a whole to be one community (which of course it is). Consider also the fact that any state can change the method of allocation (obviously, since Maine and Nebraska have done just that), and can just as easily focus on the first thing you said, that no voter actually votes for the president, and eliminate even this indirect popular vote mechanic. This of course would bypass the community entirely, in favor of whichever party controls the state legislature. This is the flawed model you will go on to defend.

With all of this considered, there are various arguments as to what the future of this process and use of the Electoral College should be. Some favor a complete removal of the Electoral College as an electoral system while others favor changing its function to better represent the will of the people. An important question that is evaluative of the discourse concerning the Electoral College is whether the voice of the individual or the community should be the primary voice that the presidential candidate campaigns to represent.

The president runs the entire country, all individuals and all communities included. Diverse coalitions of people from all walks of life have their say no matter which method is used. I reject this false choice.

The Electoral College should remain in place, but the individual states should allocate their votes based on the congressional districts instead of the winner of the state taking all electoral votes so that the voice of the constituent American communities may be represented and not strictly the voice of the individual or the voice of a state as a whole.

Setting aside the fact that the idea of this country from the start was to emphasize the states as a whole (so this suggests it is working fairly closely to how it was designed), your solution just takes what you consider to be a problem and multiplies it 435 times. It matters not if more people in a state prefer one candidate if enough districts with a 50%+1 standard give their votes away. I would assert that congressional districts are not in fact accurate representations of local communities, due to the prevalence of gerrymandering. You are in fact favoring artificial communities designed to result in predictable outcomes and allowing the collection of those results to speak not only for a majority of people in the state, but all of the actual constituent communities. The system does not allow for what you are advocating.

One modern stance regarding the future of the Electoral College favors its absolute dissolution. The call for the college’s removal is usually based on a position that favors using the national popular vote as the only means for electing the president. Matthew J. Streb presents a standard argument against the Electoral College in favor of the sole use of the national popular vote to elect the president. “The Electoral College is inconsistent with the cherished principle of ‘one person, one vote.’ Under the Electoral College, not everyone’s vote counts equally on a national level” (141). His analysis has merit as demonstrated in the following example. Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District is projected to contain “536,871” people according to the United States Census Bureau’s 2016 projections while New York’s 16th Congressional District is projected to contain “736,806” people (My Congressional District). Even though these two districts have varying population numbers, they are still represented by one electoral vote each. Even though the representation for each district is equal, a single vote in the New York district is weaker because of the number of fellow voters that a citizen has to compete with in contrast to the smaller population of the Rhode Island district. This is factually based, however, the popular vote argument assumes that the one person, one vote mentality is the most valid position. There is room to disagree.

Obviously I find no fault in this section. I could extend it further and note the absurdity that California, despite having more people than the entire country of Canada, only has 55 electoral votes, and only two senators. We have serious representation issues with the current system. The thing about a simple popular vote is that all of these arbitrary divisions and attempts at representation are irrelevant. It comes down to who wins the support of the most people, a standard we use in most of our other elections and in every vote in the House (I of course cannot say the same about the Senate but that deserves its own paper).

Making the popular vote the deciding principle of presidential elections disregards the importance of the concerns and ideas of the multitude of communities that make up The United States. This can be observed at a large scale on the state level. The Electoral College as it functions currently in 48 states and the District of Columbia favors the state community above all other viewpoints including the one person, one vote ideal and the one community, one vote ideal. James R. Stoner Jr. speaks on this emphasis of the state as a communal collective and why the Electoral College favors it. “By tallying votes for the highest office of the land by state, even giving each state a sort of bonus for being organized as a state, the Electoral College affirms the importance of these self-governing communities and helps secure their interest in self government” (51). Every state having its own legislature and political system acts as a microcosm of the nation as a whole which speaks to Stoner’s point on self government. These microcosms having their own various problems, strengths, and identities represent the collective points of view of a slice of the American electorate known as a state. The current function of the Electoral College preserves the importance of a state’s voice as a whole. Daniel Patrick Moynihan mentions the American tradition of concurrent or coexisting majorities and how the Electoral College is no different:

All through our system we find majorities at work, but they have to be at work simultaneously… The concurrent majority is required between the House of Representatives, based upon the direct election of the people, and a majority in the U. S. Senate. It is a majority of the states that counts in this body, not the majority of the population, per se. (91)

This is to say that the Electoral College seeks to create a representative majority in the same tradition as congress does and the college has fulfilled this roll since the establishment of the Constitution. However, states contain within them smaller and more diverse communities that deserve to be represented with the local level being the unit of government closest to the people which the current electoral system overlooks.

Also true, and also why the EC has to go. It comes from a time when the state was the most important polity. The country today doesn't work that way. The federal government is larger and dominant, the state governments simply do not have the same potency and importance they once did. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I believe it is a good thing and we should encourage it. As for your remark about the local level being closest to the people, yes, it is. And that is why local government is important. The presidency is a federal office with national implications. It is concerned with bigger, more sweeping issues than whatever a small town or city has on their plate. And the fact that different local communities will naturally care about different things (and have no reason to give any thought to others that naturally do not occur in their bubble) is actually more evidence why your preferred approach is the wrong one. If we start attempting to influence the weight of everyone's little bubble, we risk muddying the waters of what we need to focus on and focusing too little on the bigger picture and more on a variety of little pictures that do not adequately inform the office of the presidency. Not to mention, once again, the fact that these bubbles are artificially constructed and do not necessarily speak to what a local community actually wants. Their voices will still be diluted but now that dilution will also affect the campaigns for a national office. If limiting things to the state level isn't a good idea for a national office, I do not see how further splitting things effectively into hundreds of little states is going to improve the situation.

In order to understand the importance of the community in respect to electoral democracy, it is helpful to look backward to the Ancient Greek understanding of the polis. Greg Anderson provides a definition that is generally used by scholars today. Anderson gives a definition of the polis as “a unique, category-defying formation that was somehow both ‘state ‘ and ‘society’ simultaneously, a kind of inseparable fusion of the two” (2). The United States is vastly larger than Ancient Greece in geographic size and population. Though unlike Ancient Greece, the United States has varying degrees of government that include the federal, state, and local level. It is the local level of government that can be compared to the ancient polis. The many locales of America have their own history, culture, and general understandings about the functioning of the community structure. The local communities of America should collectively act as the deciding force in presidential elections because of their closer representation of the people that is unmatched by the state and federal levels.

Seeing this just makes it all the more clear to me that you are seeking reform in the wrong place while also making the problem you wish to fix worse. We have vastly different cultures and history across the country. It is obviously fine for local government to utilize those factors in governing itself, but every single little polis cannot extend their experience to the entire country.

The national popular vote generalizes the United States as one macro-community which does not take into consideration the more nuanced and specific concerns of each area of the country which embodies the polis concept. The current use of the Electoral College in every state besides Nebraska and Maine take communal interest into account on the state level, but even states have a variety of communities and values within them that are at risk of being overpowered by a popular majority. It is necessary to further evaluate the shortcomings of these two systems in order to better understand the strengths of an electoral system centered on the needs of the various American communities.

We have to be focused on the same macro-level issues because the presidency is a macro-level job. And your concern about the state level majority overpowering some communities is a fear I have bout your method. If gerrymandering creates a majority of districts that will vote for a republican, but the state is actually voting majority Democratic, you are going to drown out the voices of more people. And yes, it can work the same way with the parties reversed, but I'm not going to enter into a silly argument about a false equivalency (it is clear which party has committed this particular sin to greater effect).

The use of the popular vote as the decider of presidential elections is not the best way forward for the electoral process of the president though it is understandable that such a view has become popular due to the results of the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections. In these two instances the candidate elected by the Electoral College has lost the popular vote (Leip). The Electoral College avoids a scenario where a candidate clinches the popular vote but could act in a way that would create a tyranny of the majority. Having 49% of a nation vote for a candidate that did not obtain the presidency presents a problem of lack in confidence and general partisan division. The Electoral College in its current form minimizes this through the indirect allocation of electoral votes by allowing a state to choose a presidential candidate in a more locally centered contest than a national popular vote.

So instead we have tyranny of the minority. A smaller group of people deciding the outcome for the whole country is preferable to a majority deciding? I think having the president be the one elected with the smaller number is more destructive to confidence and a greater generator of partisan division, particularly when it's the same party benefiting from this outcome throughout our history.

Florida has a modern pattern of being closely divided in presidential elections and most especially in the election of 2000. However, a close race in Florida is more containable and localized than a close race nationwide which has the potential to be overwhelmingly destructive to the country’s stability. It would be difficult to imagine the lawsuits and political conflict of Florida in 2000 occurring on a national scale.

I'm glad you brought up Florida. One state-level community, itself divided in two, deciding the outcome for the entire country would not happen if we had a national popular vote. I don't agree it was contained, and I believe it is obvious how destructive that election was to the country's stability.

There is a modern movement that favors the national popular vote means of election known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that functions by bypassing the Electoral College’s intended role. The compact includes a number of states that usually lean toward the Democratic Party in elections. Each state has pledged to give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote regardless of the outcome within the state itself. However, the compact does not take effect until a collection of states containing a majority of electoral votes have signed it. If enough states joined the compact, the Electoral College would no longer function in its current form and effectively make the United States electoral system a popular system. The problem with the compact is that it wishes to remove the influence of the current electoral system without amending the United States Constitution which would be the only way to officially alter or remove the Electoral College at the federal level. Also, the vote of citizens in states that are part of the compact would not matter if the compact ever was put into effect. California as a member would give its electoral votes to the winner of the national vote regardless of the opinion of its people. This may infringe on the civil rights of California’s citizens since the deciding factor of California’s vote allocation is dependent on factors outside of the state such as how other states voted. The popular vote strategy does not take into account the voice of communities like the current state centric form does, but the state form has problems of its own.

I really love what you're doing here. You have previously (correctly) observed that no one actually votes for president. We have established that the states can determine how they allocate their electoral votes, and that this is in the constitution. So how is the NPVIC unconstitutional? The states are deciding how to allocate their votes, and the EC is still there. They don't have to amend the constitution to get rid of it, they are using it, within the parameters that are set by the constitution. And what civil rights are being infringed? People do not have a right to vote for president, they vote for electors, which are allocated according to the will of their state legislatures. If they don't like that, well then they can get rid of the EC. But you don't want them to do that either so...huh kind of a pickle. Would it suck if CA under the old rules would have voted for a Democrat but under the new rules votes for a Republican? Yeah. But if it means that we actually have a say in who the president is, and it's a fair one for everyone, then I'm up for it.

The current Electoral College system gives each state a voice that is proportionate to its size. Yet as seen in modern elections, there are still problems. In regard to campaigning, some states become neglected because of their difficulty in swinging to different parties from one election to another. As an example, Doran R. Shaw records that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the two Republican candidates, visited Louisiana a total of five times during the 2000 campaign (Appendix 1). Louisiana had voted for Democrat Bill Clinton in the previous election, but the state had the potential to swing to the Republican Party in 2000, and it did. In 2004 Cheney visited Louisiana just one time while Bush never campaigned in the state. Louisiana was considered unflippable in 2004 and therefore did not receive nearly as much attention. This creates a monopoly of campaigning in states that are consistently capable of switching parties from election to election. These states are referred to as swing states. Modern examples include Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Iowa. Even among these examples, Florida and Pennsylvania are more likely to get significant attention than Iowa because their Electoral Vote Count is much higher than Iowa. The current system allows candidates to ignore the majority of the country and ultimately focus on just ten or twelve states.

Exactly. This is bad.

This is not to say that the candidates are sinisterly choosing to ignore uncompetitive states. Campaign strategy calls for careful consideration when choosing a path forward as a presidential candidate. “A campaign has limited resources… so a smart campaign should allocate its resources in those states crucial to a minimum winning coalition” (Shaw 44). It is the electoral college’s structure as it now stands that forces candidates to focus on states that will produce the best results with the least amount of resources or money. Therefore, the fact that the current electoral structure is superior to the popular vote method in representing the communal aspect of the people’s choice does not hide its limits such as its favoring of swing states. There is another way forward that strengthens the communal aspect further and weakens the established campaigning bias. This is the allocation of electoral votes by congressional district.

This actually creates the problem that EC defenders like to throw out about a national popular vote. Now you want to replace a handful of swing states with dozens of swing districts. Same problem. You're just magnifying the problem, stretching resources even thinner and still ignoring tons of states in the process. There are communities that will still be ignored.

The use of the congressional district method is superior to the current commonly used form and the popular vote system. The congressional district is currently the smallest division used for the purpose of representation on the federal level. Deciding the allocation of electoral votes based on the leanings of the 435 congressional districts in the United States would shift the emphasis of presidential campaigning as explained by Robert C. Turner. “By awarding electoral

college votes on the basis of district rather than state-level votes, the district system would encourage presidential campaigns to focus their efforts on battleground districts instead of battleground states” (Turner 117). This change in emphasis forces candidates to campaign in individual districts that are in all parts of the country and not limited to a small number of states. Also, campaigning in one district provides less swing because to influence a district is to gain one electoral vote and not the electoral votes of an entire state. It is necessary to point out another mechanism of this electoral system. Nebraska has five electoral votes in all yet the state only has three congressional districts. The other two votes represent the two senators that represent Nebraska in the senate. Every state has two extra electoral votes added to the number of their congressional districts for this reason. Maine and Nebraska currently award those two electoral votes to the winner of the state’s popular vote. In this model, the voice of the larger community that is the state is still merited though not absolute unlike the current system used in the 48 other states and the District of Columbia. The allocation of electoral votes by congressional district allow the communal voices of America to speak their opinion through the medium of voting regardless of the overall leaning of the state. Despite California’s favoritism of the Democratic Party, the state still contains electoral districts that usually vote for the Republican candidate. These districts can still have a voice by rewarding their electoral votes to the candidate they favor while the remaining electoral districts can do the same. The same holds for Republican leaning states that contain traditionally Democratic districts. Just as every electoral plan has positives, there are always weaknesses as well.

It's strange you think this is a good thing, and not the same problem on steroids.

One common problem with the congressional district system of presidential elections is the inaccuracy of the result due to gerrymandering. Through the process of gerrymandering, a majority of state legislatures have the ability to indirectly decide the partisan leaning of a congressional district by drawing it with party membership, racial demographics, and socioeconomics in mind. Some states have attempted to solve this problem using computer programs or what are colloquially called “non-partisan committees.” The problem with these solutions is that computers are unable to use human intuition to know what constitutes a community. A computer program seeking to create districts that were as contiguous as possible would overlook cultural lines that may be better indicators of district drawing than simply contiguity. As for “non-partisan committees,” it is hard to have a body of people completely void of bias or partisan favorability. Also, if such a committee were trying to avoid gerrymandering, then it could avoid important solutions to ensure the representation of minorities. Current examples include Louisiana’s 2nd congressional district and Florida’s 5th congressional district. Both are severely gerrymandered to include certain sections of metropolitan areas. The Louisiana district has a majority African American population while the Florida district contains a plurality of African Americans which means that the demographic is the largest population by race though not an absolute majority (United States Census). It would be possible in Louisiana to draw the districts so that there are no minority majority districts and no majorities that favor a candidate of the Democratic Party. This would cause a significant underrepresentation of Louisiana’s demographic makeup. The current 2nd congressional district actually serves as a seat of representation for Louisiana’s minorities in the southern portion of the state. In Florida, both Tallahassee and Jacksonville are surrounded by Republican leaning populations which would make it difficult to provide representation for the minority population there as well. If a congressional district was to include Duval County, where Jacksonville is located, and perhaps portions of neighboring Nassau and St. Johns counties, this would create a political conflict fueled by partisan leanings. The minority population in Jacksonville would be pitted against the Republican leaning population in Duval, Nassau, and St. Johns counties. Therefore, in these situations the gerrymandering of a partisan and safe district holds merit by allowing continuous representation. The best solution to the problem of gerrymandering is using the legal system. Pennsylvania and Florida have both had their districts redrawn by the state court systems in order to ensure fairer representation. This allows each instance of gerrymandering to be addressed in a case by case basis that avoids slapdash district drawing and more partisan disagreements over the redrawing process.

It's good you addressed this. Solving this problem would go a long way to making even your model a decent one. We're still trying to balance it the best way we can. But again, a national popular vote doesn't even need to worry about this. One person is one vote. It doesn't matter how you divide them in districts, add up all the votes, the person with the most wins. I appreciated the nuance you had here, but it's wasted effort that only has the effect of allowing people to be marginalized. For someone who doesn't think marginalizing voters is a good idea, you sure do want a lot of it.

However, the issue of gerrymandering can still be related to the issue of a correlation between the results of a state’s congressional districts versus the state popular vote.

There is a possibility of a candidate winning the majority of electoral votes in a state without winning the popular vote under the congressional district system. This seems an unlikely scenario due to this never occurring in the modern era in the current states that use the method: Maine and Nebraska. Yet there is still a possibility:

With 4 and 5 electoral votes for Maine and Nebraska and the typical scenario of two viable candidates, there will never be inconsistency between the preferences of the voters of the state and the allocation of electoral votes. However, for larger states with more electoral votes, the inconsistency problem may arise where the majority of citizens vote for one candidate while the majority of electoral votes go to another candidate. (Fon 132)

Fon points out that it is possible for states like New York that usually have the heavily lopsided favoring of one candidate within multiple urban districts to result in the popular vote winner of the state not winning a majority of congressional districts. This would be a very improbable case due to the added two electoral votes that would be awarded to the popular vote winner which would buffer the electoral vote strength of the popular vote winner. A candidate who lost the popular vote would therefore have to win three more congressional districts than the popular vote winner which would not be an easy feat. Looking at this issue from a perspective of electoral emphasis, this issue of popular vote versus electoral vote only becomes a problem if the one person, one vote mentality is the ideal. A mentality that favors the representation of community over the individual would not find such a problem with an inconsistency between the popular and electoral votes. Along with the question of whether the citizen’s voice is being well represented in presidential elections, there is the issue of security which the congressional district method shows strength in.

Yeah, if you don't care about majorities of people being marginalized for some standard of "community" which I will note happens to favor minority opinion. I suppose if I were in the minority and watching the country evolve and progress beyond what I want, I would balk at allowing the most people to be heard in a freaking democracy too.

A modern discussion of elections include the issue of security and the possibility of meddling that may be orchestrated by foreign powers. The countrywide adoption of the congressional district method would significantly decrease the influence of vote tampering. “Under the district system, the incentive for electoral mischief is much lower because the most electoral votes that can possibly be changed would be three (one for the district and two for the state)” (Turner 133). As a further explanation of Turner’s point, if a foreign national wished to influence the electoral result of North Carolina in the current electoral system, a tampering operation in Raleigh could decide the fate of the state’s 15 electoral votes. Under the congressional district system the foreign national would need to work in various parts of the city to influence just one or two electoral votes. This makes the act of foreign electoral meddling less effective in its ability to alter the overall election result.

And under a national popular vote, they couldn't tamper as easily either because all the votes everywhere count. More work for the cheaters is better odds for the rest of us in my book. Again, you're debating methods to solve a problem that wouldn't exist if you just abandoned the EC.

Overall, the congressional district electoral system is the most efficient response to the current weaknesses of the Electoral College. This path forward is a better solution than the various popular vote solutions because it does not require a direct removal of the Electoral College by needing an amendment to the constitution and instead focuses on the state’s right to allocate its electoral votes in any way its people see fit.

You actually brought up a superior method that also doesn't require an amendment, the NPVIC.

Also, the congressional district model focuses on the voice of community rather than the voice of the simple majority which is better because it discourages rampant individualism and the necessity of focusing on areas of the country with significant populations such as the Northeast Corridor, the Los Angles Metropolitan Area, and the Interstate 4 Corridor in Florida.

Rampant individualism, lol. You mean everyone having an equal vote, okay. Also, by your own source's admission, you would have to deal with battleground districts. This method doesn't avoid the necessity of that focus, it shifts it to a different kind of focus which, gee, also has the effect of marginalizing millions of people, how about that.

The congressional district system is also an improvement over the current model used by a majority of states which utilizes the winner take all electoral vote method. The district model improves on the security of the present model by making elections harder to rig. The district method overall provides representation for the constituent communities of the states while also keeping two electoral votes reserved for the winner of the state to acknowledge the statewide community. The discussion of the Electoral College’s future will continue for election cycles to come. The hope is that such discourse may produce action and a betterment of the presidential election process so that the relationship between the local community and the executive might only be strengthened.

I will grant that you'll get more diverse results and states will matter in a different way under such a system. But why go for half a loaf when you can get the whole loaf? At the end of the day, you want to give a greater voice to a different minority of people, albeit it a minority in more places. That amplifies more voices but still at the expense of many others. Neither the status quo nor your preferred method do me as a blue voter in California any good. It also doesn't help ruby red Utah or Wyoming. The cities will be outnumbered by the rest of the state and the results won't change. But under a national popular vote, you would need to turn out for your candidate even if you are usually the side that loses a state, because every vote counts and maximizing your voters in enemy territory can start to make a difference against the numbers. Americans don't vote, so imagine a world where turning out your vote everywhere will actually make a material difference in your column. That's the world you call rampant individualism.

Overall not a bad essay, but still misses the points I have made in Discord time and again. Democracy is messy, the EC is not democracy, and it doesn't care what everyone says. You cannot replace the will of all the people with the will of a different specific set of people that you feel is being marginalized by the existing system. I guess you can, but not while pretending it creates some civic good, or that it is for the best.

 

[Wonderess]

The Demands of the Orderian Stronghold​

When coming to meet God as a human being, there is one central action that must be considered, this is response. Throughout life there is the call of God for us to come into communion with Him in all things, to do away with separateness from Him, to turn away from the temptation of absolute despair, and to live life for the sake of the Good in God and not merely for ourselves and our selfish want. It is in humility that we listen to what it is God continues to say whether that be through sacred scripture or the conscience within ourselves. There are many facets to this response which shall be discussed in line with the four strongholds of Orderian thought: Heart, Doctrine, Passion, and Wisdom.

Before giving consideration to response of the person, the state of the world must be considered. All that has been created has the mark of the Divine. All things share in His ultimate nature which is the essence of existence itself. All that is in nature therefore acts as it should whether that be the wild animal or the brewing storms at the coast. Humanity may bend nature to meet its needs, but that nature has no culpability in its actions for it is without will and reason. The human being that also does not think about their place or impact is like these in that the capacity to reason has been weakened or made the slave of the animalistic passions. The busybodies of the world do not fulfill their potential to be greater than what they are now for they choose to respond with silence of both word and being. We cannot ask anything of our world, therefore. Nature cannot hear the human voice. For those humans who choose to respond to God with nothing, we must first show them the error of their silence. Only when they will more than what they currently are can they be asked to yield to the will, beauty, and transcendence of that Divine Person. It is when those who respond in the fullness of their spirit and self to God that a world can then be created for the sake of service to God. This parallels the Christian concept of building the kingdom of God. It must come forth rather than being seen as a stagnant body that has always existed. There is no asking of the world but only the building of it.

In heart, faith as a response demands of the human spirit a fulfillment of the capacity to love fully. It is the denial of the animalistic care for self and one’s own direct interests. Humanity responds to God’s call by caring for those who suffer physically, economically, socially, mentally, and spiritually. Reaching for God is above all an act of love for the Divine that calls to us. Often, faith is seen as an action that comes from fear of damnation or a dislike for the perceived alternative to not responding rightly to God. This is an elementary and oversimplified understanding of how to perceive the invitation that God has sent to each human being. The bond that exists between God and man as a result of invitation and response is one of love rather than fear because it is positive in its manifestation. It is about seeking the good out because of the inherent good in doing that very thing rather than being about gaining some reward or escaping some horrible eternity. This love grows from an authentic dependence and selfless giving to God. It does not consider too greatly the consequence of this relation, but rather the beauty and permanence of the relationship itself. This love that is oriented towards God necessarily reflects the love the person has for other humans and self as well. The compassion, mercy, and respect that is practiced for other people is necessarily linked to God because they are creations of God as well. So too is the self a creation and act of God. This love is perfected in the practice of the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy. The fruit of love is friendship which is realized through relationship with God and with other people.

In doctrine, faith as a response demands of the human spirit a fulfillment of the capacity to be obedient to truth and reason. Doctrine in the original sense is not about regurgitating memorized statements or blindly following ideas. It is about coming to know divine truth and bringing one’s life into obedience with it. Truth once known changes the state of life forever. If a person comes to know that something is wrong then they must live to not perform that action willfully again. Faith proceeds understanding, but understanding follows faith. Within the Catholic context, if the Church is the safeguard of revealed truth, then it is an authority and source of knowledge that cannot be dismissed for the sake of independence or “free thinking.” Those who hold to doctrine have the duty to know why a rationale exists and to understand to the depth of one’s ability to understand. Catechesis, that is the teaching of the faithful, is not about brainwashing or conditioning but about bringing to light the truths of faith along with that which points to them as true. Obedience to the Church is not a mindless following but once again the will to understand declared truths and then living according to them. In the end the independent reasoning of man is capable of error, but the working tradition of the Church is protected in part by the promises of God’s invitation. Seeking truth and knowledge brings understanding of existence itself whether it be empirical knowledge, philosophical knowledge, or religious knowledge.

In passion, faith as a response demands of the human spirit a fulfillment of the capacity to understand self and be inspired. To respond to God is to use the gifts and talents one has in order to fully realize who it is they were meant to be. Thus comes the concept of vocation and the pursuit of one’s telos. Just as a spider honors God by making webs as is in its nature, each human being honors God by using their individual powers to bring about greater good for the world. This requires the pursuit of contemplation so that one can understand self and where they are to be in the world. This is a life long process which acts as a part of the response to God. It is related to the knowledge of doctrine, but it more so stands independent as a reflection on the value and dignity of self. Identity comes forth from this contemplation which molds the person’s values, mission, and pursuits. Identity is discovered rather than merely fabricated as can often be considered the case. Each person is unique, but they all are unified in their capacity to respond and pursue God by being more than themselves. Passion also mandates an openness to inspiration. This is the ability for God to lead the soul to where it is supposed to go next. It is the means by which the person comes closer to God because through passion one is drawn upward to Him. Passion defends against the weaknesses of identity such as the influence of others that may lead to destitution of spirit and the denial of transcendent truths. Confidence in faith must be assured while being assisted by reason to make the confidence justified rather than being blind as well as destructive to the God and person relationship.

In wisdom, faith as a response demands of the human spirit a fulfillment of the capacity to know God and seek Him by way of the soul. Wisdom is the stronghold of being that deals with the mystery and unspoken reality of faith. It deals with the auspices of mysticism and those truths of faith that are not easily reached by way of reason as doctrine does. Part of responding to God is neither with voice or action or even self expression as in passion. It is simply a response with entire being and spirit combined. The person must come to understand this deeper aspect of the lived reality by being open to God. Wisdom is very much about allowing God to send Himself to us and then draw us along with Him back to that which He is. This comes through insight, the experience of life, and the encounter of the sacred. It is not merely an emotional kind of feeling but a subsistent sense from within. The reason can come to obstruct this sense by trying to make sense if not control the understandings that come from it thus getting in the way. Wisdom is often the hardest part of faith itself to explain to others because it is inexplicable and not reachable by human reason making it seem fantastical and not real at all. Paradoxically, it is perhaps the most real aspect of the invitation and the deepest call of it which allows the person to continue life in response to God’s initial call. Heart and doctrine are the means by which God’s call is heard, but wisdom is the means by which the depth of that call is understood and made a part of the person. Without wisdom, there is no depth to heart, doctrine, and passion. They merely maintain a shallow status that appears to be created or fabricated by humanity. Wisdom draws the person to the deeper source of these three strongholds, the Divine itself.

The response by which humanity calls to God as the beginning and first inviter has many facets as has been shown in heart, doctrine, passion, and wisdom. There is a true way by which the response is made, and even though it is true it has aspects that are particular to each person as seen in the different lives that are lived faithfully to God in the world. Above anything these four Orderian strongholds through the response put forth a demand. A demand is an imperative that is asked yet considered unable to be denied. The demands of love, rational obedience, personal understanding, and mystical pursuit are permanent. They seek out particular responsibilities and capacities of the human person which comprehensively ask as a unified demand for the entire being of the person body and soul for the sake of responding to God who wishes there to be perfect union between human and God. If this demand of reality is not met, then reality itself has been denied and this being not in the nature of the person shall cause detriments in life and after it, but it is a collection of detriments that have come about because of the very will of the person rather than some divine hammer of judgement. Therefore, as God invites each soul there must be an immediate and unwavering yes which lasts a lifetime and continues to be reflected in stronghold and demand until the last breath of earthly life.

 

[Wonderess]

Note: This is my final paper for my Faith and Reason independent study which was meant to be an allegorical and philosophical sample studying their relationship.

In the Reflections of Light​

At some moment in this modern decade was a boy of the age of eighteen engrossed in a monument of many centuries past. With his family he visited the great Palace of Versailles on the outskirts of the French heart, Paris. He viewed the splendors of the palace, the splendors of an age no more. He being the result of modernity began to question the continuity of the past with the present. The palace stuck out from everything around it in the city. The mixture of neoclassical and baroque styles emanated a certain spirit that modern architecture did not do so commonly.

His wandering finally brought him to the great chapel of the palace. This was where the splendor was greatest, where that spirit finally could be named: transcendence. The religious art of the ceiling leading to the high altar called to the boy. It led him closer and closer to that banquet table placed at the focal point of the large chamber. Here something was different from the rest of the world. The grandeur of the space combined with the sense of spirit was almost too much to bear. In these moments he felt a call to the right side of the chapel. He moved almost in a trance state towards the column nearest to the altar and circled around to the side facing towards the wall with the altar. There was a mirror hanging on this pillar. Oddly it was the only one of its kind in the entire chapel. No other column bore a mirror on it. The boy, Faison, looked at himself in the mirror, but he couldn’t see himself in it at all. It was as if there was something beyond his reflection, something on the other side of the glass as if it were a window rather than a mirror.

The draw Faison experienced pulled him still towards this lone mirror. There were words wishing to come forth from him all on their own for the mirror was drawing them from his tongue. He did not fight this urge for he saw only good in it. He whispered softly,

Faison: I will be true to you, whatever comes.

Suddenly the palace was there no more. Before him was a door upwards of twenty feet in height. He found himself in a chamber filled with carvings on the wall with hundreds of figures upright and standing with their eyes all trained on the door as if they were waiting for something to open it. There was only this one door and no other openings in the chamber. Faison walked about the room examining the different figures all from different times and places as shown by their clothing. After about three minutes of this, the large door cracked open, and two figures emerged. One was a man and the other a woman both in their twenties. Faison knew them immediately.

The woman was Fidei. Her presence made the room glow brighter and the faces of the figures on the walls became less obscured. They all had smiling faces and were looking towards the door in anticipation. She was dressed in draped cloaks of gold and white and appeared like a woman of ancient Greek culture. Her beauty was unmatched. Upon her head was a ringlet of gold with no embellishment for it would only subtract from her beauty to have anything else. In her hand was a grape vine which had three branches on it each carrying a group of red grapes.

The man was Ratio. His presence made the room sharper. The purpose of the figures became more readily understood as they were waiting for the door to open because their life depended on it. Ratio’s cloaks were similar to Fidei’s except that his were black and silver. He was a handsome man, but it was his clarity and confidence that were the most noticeable in his demeanor. He also had a ringlet but it was silver rather than gold. In his right hand was an armillary sphere that seemed to be in motion. Despite all of these developments, Faison was completely calm. They were like old friends to him, and their presence only increased his joy. He knew that a discussion was now to ensue like something out of a Platonic writing.

Fidei: Hello Faison. We welcome you to the Hall of the Precipice. This place is for those who come to learn before continuing through this door. Ratio and I are the guardians of this door, and it is our duty to keep out all who are not yet capable of going through. Tell me, do you think that we are to allow you through?

Faison: I do not know, my lady. I can only say that I am filled with gladness to be here with the two of you. I feel like I have known you forever and that though I am young you have been with me a lifetime.

Ratio: A worthy observation. We two are with all of mankind regardless of age or time, peace or war, conscious memory or subconscious experience. We exist to serve humanity in all things.

Faison: I believe it. Help me to understand, how is it you have come by me in my own life?

Ratio: Well Faison, like many of your age I have been with you in all of your studies and learning. Whether it be mathematics, your studies of our natural world, or even making since of literature and technique in your classes I have been there with you to illumine the mind and enrich the spirit by intellectual explorations.

Fidei: I have been with you when you have wondered about your place in the world and when understandings with Ratio have brought to you a sense of wonder about what lies behind all that is empirical and observable. I have consoled you when your hope has run dry or when the greatest challenge has threatened to topple your sense of spirit and wonder. It has been my place to remind you of your worthiness of love and greatness when you failed to see it in yourself.

Faison: Yes, I do remember all of these things. It’s like you have never been separate from me at all. Even in my darkest moments there you were to illumine me with the truth of the situation or with renewed hope. Are there those who do not know you at all, or is everyone as fortunate as I am to have you with me in all things?

Ratio: Sadly, we are not always with all, for we can be turned away by the human will at any moment. When the person refuses to think honestly, they obstruct me from my sacred duty to them. Only emotional response and the worldview of one’s whim is taken and so the ability to reason fully becomes hindered by bias and selfishness. I cannot be a companion of one who lives life as only a follower. It takes courage and a sense of self respect to reason about truth no matter the fear of the finding. My greatest child is formal science in which truth is sought and protected for the good of all who live, but even in her is corruption. Science has great authority because of the truths she brings forth, but that authority can be abused to publicize that which is not truth, but sentiment or deceit. When science is used as a means to undermine values, moral systems, or philosophy, the she fails in her original purpose. I mourn the abuse of my dear child for she was only meant to forward the knowledge of man as an inherent good, but now she is abused to harm others, to deify the man who wishes to know all and be all for himself, and to even harm dear Fidei who deserves it the least.

Fidei: So too has faithfulness been used to drive away good reason and the pursuit of truth. Belief can become about a matter of sentiment or seeing what one wants to see rather than facing what is true and of the three transcendental properties of Good, Truth, and Beauty. As Ratio said, it becomes about what one wants to be true rather than what is actually true. The subjective takes precedence over the objective and so the personal becomes superior to the truths that exist outside of man. How often holy faith is abused as a means to bring about some desired end. Great sanctity is defiled for the sake of some selfish gain of a person or even a people. So called ministers using their role to gain wealth from followers is a particular instance. Tyranny comes forth from such selfishness and that which is truly sacred and holy becomes forgotten for it has been replaces with a parody of the true, a facsimile that can never have the potential to fill that which was ousted. For some, God has been ousted and replaced with man. For others, truth has been ousted and replaced with mere sentiment under the guise of relativism and fairness. Finding what is good and true through the unity of mind and soul has become like a lost art, and we all have suffered the more for it.

Faison: But why have you two been forced to act as enemies? So many favor one of you over the other out of principle.

Fidei: It is a sorrow indeed that we have been taken as enemies when in fact we depend on one another for companionship and for completion of ourselves. Instead of seeing us as two modes of obtaining truth, we are seen as contrary pursuits because we come to truth differently. Difference is one root of hostility because it blocks understanding from being realized. Those of faith wish to make rational pursuit irrelevant and inferior to those articles of grace and belief because they perceive it as capable of deceit and destructive towards proper faith.

Ratio: Yes, and similarly those who hold reason before faith see faith as irrational and merely a fiction generated for practical reasons of dealing with life. Truth becomes limited to what is empirically graspable and nothing more because there is a lack of trust that only faith itself can provide the person. The pride of man makes it where all must be at his disposal including truth through the senses. The mystery and more intuitive facets of human life are rejected because they do not fall into the narrow parameters that have been defined by those who see themselves as the prime creation of the modern world. Those of faith alone and those of reason alone share in that one sidedness, the propensity to listen to no one who dares opposes their viewpoint. The sentiments that were previously spoken of have poisoned humanity even now. The passions of the person now rules rather than that will to see what is beyond our wants. To see what simply is true.

Fidei: There remains hope that this can be changed, and that unity between us can be understood and lived out, still. There are many who know this already and live their lives with both of us by their side. You, Faison can be a part of that hope. You have it within you to strike the balance and complementarity between us and live authentically because of it as do all people.

Faison: Yes, my lady. I hold this as true, but how are you two to be unified once again? How is it that you two work in concert?

Fidei: We are truly equals in all things. This being said, I am the one that comes first in human experience. I am the starting point, the vessel by which reason begins its journey. Faith is the bringer of true meaning, value, orientation, and purpose to the person. The very reason they seek knowledge or the good comes from a faith in greater things mastered by the Lord God above. I provide insight into the first principles of the human condition, the course of the vessel in life is a matter of my domain for the reason must have a destination. I come at the beginning, and I also remain along the journey of life itself. All thought and action has underlying purpose and value that is not perceived by the human eye, for it is I that acts to bring this knowledge to the person. My truths are substantial though they are not apprehended by any sort of data or physical method. I shine in the act of a mother’s love for her child, an academic’s obedience to truth, an activist’s knowledge of their own character and gifts, and the longing for God experienced by a religious. All these things are so profound to the living human subject and yet they are not easily reasoned or ordered because they abide with me.

Ratio: If Fidei is to provide the course, then I am to get us to the end. With a heading that is certain I do my part to whether the seas and provide understanding to everything between the beginning and the end. That purpose is manifested in the life by reason and understanding the steps needed to be taken. The higher truths of faith are connected to the foundational truths of the physical world through reason. Ethics manifests those higher truths in the daily realities of human action. The substantial forms of existence become illuminated in the better understanding of the universal empirical order such as through methods of biology or physics. I am the bastion of practicality and so it is through me that the vision and masterful ideals of faith are made a reality in the midst of man. Even theology is the central exercise of reasoning from the fortress of faith. We cannot survive without the other, and the fulness of truth as well as life is only realized when we become unified in our goal as equals as if we were one voice.

Faison: Yes, I see this all, and I know it to be the case. I can sense the very good of this, the beauty and the truth as well. It fills me to the brim with resolve. What strength is this, that I have come to know? It must be this union you speak of. I ask now, what is at the center of you both, what fundamentally are you?

Fidei: I am what lies beyond the door. I come from eternity. I come from being.

Ratio: I am what lies beyond the door. I come from eternity. I come from being.

Faison: What is it that lies beyond the door?

Fidei: The fact that you have asked means you are ready to enter and find out for yourself. We do not need to protect it from you.

Ratio: The door leads to eternity where we are from. It is the rest of earthly life and all that comes after. It is the door of resumption from where you came. This precipice has been whethered by you, Faison, so now you can move beyond it back to the moment from which this interlude began.

The great door began to open and piercing light streamed from it unlike any light Faison had seen. All the figures on the wall began to move as a great slow drove towards the door. The figures marched together on each side towards the great light as if they were all one.

Faison: Fidei, Ratio, who are you?

Fidei: We are faith, we are one.

Ratio: We are reason, we are one.

Raith: There was never two.

Feason: There was never many.

FaithReason: Though I was of two modes I am united by the truth I seek. Truth is purely one. Truth is that which I pursue and so as a reflection of that light of truth, I am one also. Faith is one of my names and reason another.

Faieason: I am not separate from you, oh spirit of humanity. I exist in you because you are the seeker of truth. You are the place where faith and reason are united for you wield both and call upon both as an act of your being. That is your great place, oh humanity. Only in you do faith and reason intersect in this great universe. So are you the guardian of both. So are you to love both and use both to understand that one truth of Divine height.

Faison: I though a boy am the union of faith and reason, so are you the union of faith and reason. It is in our nature, and it cannot be denied yet we deny our very being.

The figures were still moving towards the door. The persons of Fidei and Ratio were now gone. Faison was changed. He wore cloaks of white, gold, black, and silver. Upon his head was a ringlet of intertwined silver and gold. One hand bore a vine with branches which contained three groups of grapes. The other hand bore an armillary sphere. He was never speaking to two others but always to himself as himself. It was he who guarded the door from himself. It was he who both questioned and answered. The separateness of natures was an illusion that had now been broken.

The light from the door overtook him and he was back in the chapel at Versailles. No moment had past since his perceived departure. The mirror was gone. There was no sign that it was ever there at all. Filled with all that he had seen, Faison moved to the center of the chapel and knelt before the high altar. He wished to pray about all that had been made known to him.

Faison: My God, I have just seen oh so great a vision that I know is from you. It is because of your grace that I called to the mirror “I will be true to you, whatever comes.” Little did I know that I was speaking to myself. My very command to myself in the mirror took shape in your vision, which is at this moment so critical upon the precipice of the rest of my life and existence. By your blessing I received the gift of myself. My soul visited my soul. My faith and reason obeyed your command and showed me their beauty and good in all. Such a blind wanderer I was before. I know now that I live to serve you as truth itself. My faith and my reason, equal in their humility, offer their service for the ushering of good into this world in so desperate need of it. May I never turn away from glorious faith who guides me to you. Nor may I turn away from stable and luminous reason which brings understanding to me. I am one boy before one God and so I cannot betray my oneness lest I blaspheme the unity of He who made me in His image. I pray, Lord, that I may live eternally for you and with you. May faith and reason be my guide, and may I forever be their union, Faison.

Faison came to the precipice on that day in the modern decade. He went away changed forever. Such change never had to be sought in a foreign nation or at a historic place such as the French palace. It can happen to anyone, in the very next breath. May we all find our precipice, and may faith and reason be forever one.

 

[Wonderess]

I did not write this. It is written by Joseph Pierce and can be found here: https://www.ncregister.com/blog/beyond-modernity-literary-reactions

I read this article and found it to be very good at providing a big picture of our current societal course.

Beyond Modernity: Literary Reactions From Dickens, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis and More​

The stormtroopers of modernity have trampled much underfoot on their monstrous march across the historical landscape. Having abandoned the lessons of the past in the reckless pursuit of an imaginary future, these slaves of the Zeitgeist have killed millions in the name of a mythical progress. The progressives of the French Revolution ushered in a reign of terror, as well as a policy of genocide against the people of the Vendée, butchering anyone who resisted the “progressive” agenda. Inspired by the proto-communism of the French Revolution, the stormtroopers of the Bolshevik Revolution killed tens of millions of civilians on the altar of “progress.” Not to be outdone, the Chinese communists also killed tens of millions in the name of this same deadly progressivism. In Germany, another form of socialism raised its ugly head in the form of the National Socialists. The hideous legacy of these modernist creeds can be seen in the ghastliness of the guillotine, the gulag and the gas chamber.

In addition, the onward march of technology has bestowed upon modernity unprecedented power to build weapons of mass destruction. In the past century, the spirit of modernity has overseen the techno-butchery of two world wars, adding tens of millions of additional people to modernity’s body count, culminating in the dropping of atomic bombs on two cities full of civilians. In recent decades, modernity has ushered in a culture of death in which systemic infanticide is enforced, making war on the weakest in the name of “progress.”

In the midst of modernity’s mayhem and madness, the power of literature has often raised a powerful reactionary voice.

Back in the early days of modernity, Jonathan Swift satirized the dangers of scientism in Gulliver’s Travels. Mary Shelley depicted such scientism as a monster, which devoured the innocent before finally destroying itself and its practitioners. Charles Dickens raised a powerful voice, decrying the heartlessness of industrialized materialism in both its capitalist and socialist forms, echoing William Blake’s disdain for the “dark satanic mills.”


In the 20th century, the reactionary voice was raised in the cautionary dystopian fiction of Robert Hugh Benson in Lord of the World, Aldous Huxley in Brave New World and George Orwell in Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. In The Man Who was Thursday, G. K. Chesterton revealed how ideas have consequences and, more to the point, how bad ideas have bad consequences, showing how nihilism annihilates goodness, truth and beauty. More important, however, Chesterton’s novel reveals the light that annihilates nihilism itself.

The war poets, especially Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen, exposed the hideous ugliness and inhumane butchery of the industrialized warfare made possible by technological “progress.” In “The Litany of the Lost”, Sassoon derided those aspects of “progress” which had a regressive impact on humanity:

In breaking of belief in human good;
In slavedom of mankind to the machine;
In havoc of hideous tyranny withstood,
And terror of atomic doom foreseen;
Deliver us from ourselves.

Another poet, Edith Sitwell, expressed similar horror in “The Shadow of Cain,” the first of her “three poems of the Atomic Age”:


We did not heed the Cloud in the Heavens shaped like the hand Of Man. ... But there came a roar as if the Sun and Earth had come together — The Sun descending and the Earth ascending to take its place above. ... [T]he Primal Matter Was broken, the womb from which all life began. Then to the murdered Sun a totem pole of dust arose in memory of Man.

In A Canticle for Leibowitz, Walter M. Miller depicted a world in which a nuclear holocaust had brought the madness of modernity to an abrupt and violent end and in which perennial truth had shown itself resilient to such extreme devastation, rising like a phoenix of faith in God and Man from the ashes of godless nihilism and inhuman scientism.

In his Space Trilogy, C. S. Lewis exposes the demonic heart of materialism and the diabolical consequences of scientism, as well as showing how authentic self-sacrificial love, and especially marital love, is the antidote to the poison of modernity.

In perhaps the greatest poem of the past century, “The Waste Land” by T. S. Eliot, we see how modernity has produced “hollow men,” heartless and headless, who are heedless of the deeper truths that sustain human flourishing.


In Russia, the works of Dostoyevsky prophesied the dangers of nihilistic ideology and the works of Solzhenitsyn exposed the horrors of Soviet tyranny. Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich shows how men are crushed under the “progressive” jackboot but also how the human spirit can triumph over the most inhumane of political systems.

As these great works remind us, literature sees beyond modernity, transcending time with its timeless insights and shining forth the light of beauty so that we can see glimpses of the goodness that reigns beyond all darkness.