On opposite ends of the political spectrum lie two different types of
voters, city dwellers and country bumpkins. Which end is better?

Let´s begin with the big-city dweller. Big cities, all glitter aside,
equal big numbers of people, and big numbers of people often have an
opposite effect on individuals, that is, one individual in a sea of so
many tends to feel a bit smaller than he would in a country town.

When it comes to political participation, that means one vote, one
letter, seems one big waste of one´s tightly scheduled time.

Big-city life also means that the candidate or incumbent is someone who
is almost always tied into elite/corporate interests, and who thus comes
across to a voter, who already feels a bit despondent and
disenfranchised, as an intimidating, even an untouchable individual.

So why get involved, why vote, why write letters, why attend town hall
meetings, why even think about the issues? And if one decides to vote
anyway, out of a sense of duty, then the best thing to do is vote for
the guy or gal who looked best on that TV commercial which interrupted
Monday Night Football.

When the taxes go up, if it´s noticed at all, the city dweller only
grumbles come April, wishes he could do something about that (for the
few hours it takes to fill out the tax form), but realizing he can´t do
a thing gets back to the grindstone and never thinks about it again till
next year.

This might seem a bit generalized, for there are always plenty of
exceptions, but as you and I know, this pretty much sums it up.

It´s not the same out in the country, where it is far more likely that a
positive, engaged feeling occurs.

How could it not? When the mayor is the guy next door who also teaches
your kids' Sunday school, when the state senator is the town grocer and
the high school tennis coach, and when the governor is the farm boy from
the neighboring county you played baseball against all through high
school, there is a greater sense that he or she is "one of us," for in
fact, he or she often is.

In towns like this, when you show up at the voting booth and you wait on
line, everybody knows everybody, and all of a sudden your vote counts,
and your sense of citizenship and commitment to know the issues are
elevated.

Ever wonder why so many small towns have so many potholes in the road,
if they have a paved road at all? It´s because the locals let Uncle Joe
know that if he raises their taxes, he had better relocate himself to
the next county, and fast!

The strange and wonderful thing is, on a percentage basis, life is
richer, schools are better, families are larger, and marriages more
solid, despite the potholes! An important lesson about the value of
small governments over large!

That´s why Founder Roger Sherman – the author of the "Connecticut
Compromise" (which compromise gave each state two senators, a principle
mirrored by the Electoral College) – claimed the rural vote was a more
honest reflection of the values of "all" Americans, big city and rural.

He explained: "In the large States it will be most difficult to collect
the real and fair sense of the people. Fallacy and undue influence will
be practiced," while in the small states, he proposed, a greater
intimacy will produce a far greater sense of voter franchise and
political accountability.

His conclusion, giving the small states, and thus the rural towns, a
disproportionate influence, first through an equal vote in the Senate,
and then a similar offsetting equality in the Electoral College, would
more accurately reflect the will of "all" the people, big-city dwellers
and country bumpkins, and thus bless the national government with what
he called greater "vigor."

Alexis de Tocqueville, in his famous 1831 study of small-town
governments in America, "Democracy In America," agreed:

"Local assemblies of citizens constitute the strength of free nations.
Town-meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they
bring it within the people's reach, they teach men how to use and how to
enjoy it. A nation may establish a system of free government, but
without the spirit of municipal institutions it cannot have the spirit
of liberty."

In the introduction to the same book, he adds, "It is the public opinion
formed in the independent expressions of towns and other small civil
districts that is the real conservatism of free government ... [and
where we will find] the enemy of that dangerous evil, the corruption of
the ballot-box."

De Toqueville and Sherman were right. The strength of American liberty
is found in its small towns and small states.

Chalk up one more reason to keep the Electoral College, for it reaches
out to that class of individuals who are more engaged as citizens and
more in the habit of demanding accountability from their
representatives. To the degree that this is true, and their influence is
felt in the national councils, a more accurate assessment of the
collective will of the people results.

It appears this is what happened on Nov. 7 when George W. Bush captured
the small-town vote, and thus the presidency. He became "The Pick of the
Crop"!

HOME

Webmaster