Joshua Holzer, Author at Missouri Independent

No country still uses an electoral college − except the US

Joshua Holzer — Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:55:55 +0000

(Getty stock photo).

The United States is the only democracy in the world where a presidential candidate can get the most popular votes and still lose the election.

Thanks to the Electoral College, that has happened five times in the country’s history. The most recent examples are from 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the Electoral College after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and 2016, when Hillary Clinton got more votes nationwide than Donald Trump but lost in the Electoral College.

The Founding Fathers did not invent the idea of an electoral college. Rather, they borrowed the concept from Europe, where it had been used to pick emperors for hundreds of years.

As a scholar of presidential democracies around the world, I have studied how countries have used electoral colleges. None have been satisfied with the results. And except for the U.S., all have found other ways to choose their leaders.

The origins of the US Electoral College

The Holy Roman Empire was a loose confederation of territories that existed in central Europe from 962 to 1806. The emperor was not chosen by heredity, like most other monarchies. Instead, emperors were chosen by electors, who represented both secular and religious interests.

As of 1356, there were seven electors: Four were hereditary nobles and three were chosen by the Catholic Church. By 1803, the total number of electors had increased to 10. Three years later, the empire fell.

When the Founding Fathers were drafting the U.S. Constitution in 1787, the initial draft proposal called for the “National Executive,” which we now call the president, to be elected by the “National Legislature,” which we now call Congress. However, Virginia delegate George Mason viewed “making the Executive the mere creature of the Legislature as a violation of the fundamental principle of good Government,” and so the idea was rejected.

Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson proposed that the president be elected by popular vote. However, many other delegates were adamant that there be an indirect way of electing the president to provide a buffer against what Thomas Jefferson called “well-meaning, but uninformed people.” Mason, for instance, suggested that allowing voters to pick the president would be akin to “refer(ring) a trial of colours to a blind man.”

For 21 days, the founders debated how to elect the president, and they held more than 30 separate votes on the topic – more than for any other issue they discussed. Eventually, the complicated solution that they agreed to was an early version of the electoral college system that exists today, a method where neither Congress nor the people directly elect the president. Instead, each state gets a number of electoral votes corresponding to the number of members of the U.S. House and Senate it is apportioned. When the states’ electoral votes are tallied, the candidate with the majority wins.

James Madison, who was not fond of the Holy Roman Empire’s use of an electoral college, later recalled that the final decision on how to elect a U.S. president “was produced by fatigue and impatience.”

After just two elections, in 1796 and 1800, problems with this system had become obvious. Chief among them was that electoral votes were cast only for president. The person who got the most electoral votes became president, and the person who came in second place – usually their leading opponent – became vice president. The current process of electing the president and vice president on a single ticket but with separate electoral votes was adopted in 1804 with the passage of the 12th Amendment.

Some other questions about how the electoral college system should work were clarified by federal laws through the years, including in 1887 and 1948.

After the 2020 presidential election exposed additional flaws with the system, Congress further tweaked the process by passing legislation that sought to clarify how electoral votes are counted.

Other electoral colleges

After the U.S. Constitution went into effect, the idea of using an electoral college to indirectly elect a president spread to other republics.

For example, in the Americas, Colombia adopted an electoral college in 1821. Chile adopted one in 1828. Argentina adopted one in 1853.

In Europe, Finland adopted an electoral college to elect its president in 1925, and France adopted an electoral college in 1958.

Over time, however, these countries changed their minds. All of them abandoned their electoral colleges and switched to directly electing their presidents by votes of the people. Colombia did so in 1910, Chile in 1925, France in 1965, Finland in 1994, and Argentina in 1995.

The U.S. is the only democratic presidential system left that still uses an electoral college.

A ‘popular’ alternative?

There is an effort underway in the U.S. to replace the Electoral College. It may not even require amending the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, currently agreed to by 17 U.S. states, including small states such as Delaware and big ones such as California, as well as the District of Columbia, is an agreement to award all of their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate gets the most votes nationwide. It would take effect once enough states sign on that they would represent the 270-vote majority of electoral votes. The current list reaches 209 electoral votes.

A key problem with the interstate compact is that in races with more than two candidates, it could lead to situations where the winner of the election did not get a majority of the popular vote, but rather more than half of all voters chose someone else.

When Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Finland and France got rid of their electoral colleges, they did not replace them with a direct popular vote in which the person with the most votes wins. Instead, they all adopted a version of runoff voting. In those systems, winners are declared only when they receive support from more than half of those who cast ballots.

Notably, neither the U.S. Electoral College nor the interstate compact that seeks to replace it are systems that ensure that presidents are supported by a majority of voters.

Editor’s note: This story includes material from a story published on May 20, 2020.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

NATO isn’t the only alliance countries are eager to join – a brief history of the Five Eyes

Joshua Holzer — Fri, 28 Jul 2023 10:45:01 +0000

A protester holds a sign that reads “Who Will Stop Putin” in front of the Brandenburg gate on Feb. 24, 2022, in Berlin, Germany (Hannibal Hanschke/Getty Images).

After the recent NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, it is anticipated that Sweden will soon become the alliance’s 32nd member.

The heart of this alliance – which was established in the aftermath of World War II to promote the collective security of its mostly Western European members – is Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which requires that if one member is attacked, then all of the other members will respond as if they themselves had been attacked.

Its most recent addition came in April 2023, when Finland became the 31st country to join.

At present, NATO currently recognizes Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine as aspiring members.

But NATO isn’t the only alliance that countries across the globe are eager to join.

For more than 75 years, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. have been sharing intelligence with one another as part of what they call the Five Eyes alliance.

I am a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst who now studies and teaches political science. I know from personal experience that the Five Eyes is still very active in the 21st century, even though it’s not as well known as its younger sibling NATO.

Origins

In 1940, during the prime ministership of Winston Churchill, a secret effort by U.K. codebreakers to deconstruct Germany’s Enigma machine succeeded, allowing the British to read German military messages. These messages ended up being a major source of intelligence throughout World War II, providing much-needed information about German troop numbers, military maneuvers and technological developments.

British mathematician Alan Turing is probably the most widely recognized person who worked to help crack the Enigma machine. But in reality it was the collective effort of hundreds of men and women, including mathematicians, linguists and even chess champions.

Parallel to these developments, U.S. codebreakers were able to successfully crack diplomatic codes used by the Japanese.

In February 1941, an American military delegation was invited to visit the U.K. codebreaking operation, based on an estate called Bletchley Park. However, when “approving the visit, Churchill … prohibited any British discussion of their success against the Enigma” machine, according to a 2016 speech by Richard Ledgett, then the deputy director of the U.S. National Security Agency.

Upon their arrival, the American officers “explained how to break the Japanese codes,” Ledgett said, going on to observe that the information “caused the British to re-examine their initial decision” to keep their Enigma success a secret.

Afterward, Churchill approved a request to reveal “to our American colleagues the progress … made in probing German Armed Force cryptography.”

Throughout the remainder of the war, the U.K. and U.S. continued working together to enhance their codebreaking capabilities. In 1943, this informal relationship was formalized with the Britain-United States of America, or BRUSA, agreement.

This intelligence alliance was further strengthened by the UKUSA agreement signed on March 5, 1946. That same day, Churchill was at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri – the college where I now teach – giving his “Iron Curtain” speech.

In 2010, this top-secret agreement was declassified and made publicly available for the first time.

Canada joined the UKUSA agreement in 1948. Australia and New Zealand joined in 1956. Thus, the the Five Eyes was born.

Recent developments

To address the rising power of China, members of the Five Eyes have recently expanded the scope of the alliance beyond intelligence sharing into the realm of policy. Five Eyes attorneys general now regularly meet, as do finance members and defense ministers.

In November 2020, the once-secretive Five Eyes alliance took the bold step of publicly issuing a joint statement condemning China’s National Security Law for “undermin[ing] Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.”

China responded by warning that “attempts by certain countries to meddle in Hong Kong politics … are futile and doomed to fail.”

Notably, China is New Zealand’s largest export market. At the time, New Zealand was also hoping to conclude an upgraded free trade deal with China.

In January 2021, the Five Eyes countries – except New Zealand – issued a joint statement condemning “the mass arrests of 55 politicians and activists in Hong Kong for subversion under the National Security Law.” That same month, China and New Zealand signed the upgraded free trade deal.

Since that time, New Zealand has continued to avoid taking as strong a position as the rest of the Five Eyes. As a result, the U.S. has sought to circumvent New Zealand’s reluctance by formalizing other agreements without the Kiwis.

For example, in September 2021, Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. announced the AUKUS partnership. Under this agreement, the three countries “will expand and accelerate [the] sharing of sensitive information.” Canada has expressed a desire to join the AUKUS partnership. This would leave New Zealand as the only Five Eyes member outside of the pact.

The Five Eyes alliance has had to deal with other internal difficulties as well. For example, the U.S. has had several notable intelligence failures, including the leaks of classified documents by Edward Snowden and former President Donald Trump’s alleged hoarding of classified documents. Both of those events undermine U.S. assurances to its allies that it can keep a secret.

Looking ahead

Over the years, several countries have been considered as potential candidates to join the Five Eyes, including India, Israel, Germany and South Korea.

Currently, the most likely candidate is probably Japan. At the end of 2016, Australia and the U.S. signed a trilateral agreement with Japan to deepen their covert security cooperation. As of 2020, Japan’s minister of defense was enthusiastically in favor of joining the Five Eyes. In 2021, Japan’s ambassador to Australia argued that “in terms of interests and capability, Japan is the best candidate” to consider for enlarging the Five Eyes.

In 2022, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations “acknowledge[d] that the threat landscape has vastly changed since the inception of the Five Eyes arrangement, with primary threats now emanating from China and Russia.” It recommended “expanding the Five Eyes arrangement to include … Japan.”

Regardless of whether Japan – or others – ends up joining the alliance, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman warned in 2020 that “no matter how many eyes they have, five or 10 or whatever, should anyone dare to undermine China’s sovereignty, security and development interests,” they should “be careful not to get poked in the eye.”

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What is the difference between nationalism and patriotism?

Joshua Holzer — Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:45:31 +0000

The U.S Capitol Building is prepared for the inaugural ceremonies for President-elect Joe Biden as American flags are placed in the ground on the National Mall on January 18, 2021 in Washington, DC. The approximately 191,500 U.S. flags will cover part of the National Mall and will represent the American people who are unable to travel to Washington, DC for the inauguration (Joe Raedle/Getty Images).

During his presidency, Donald Trump said, “We’re putting America first … we’re taking care of ourselves for a change,” and then declared, “I’m a nationalist.” In another speech, he stated that under his watch, the U.S. had “embrace[d] the doctrine of patriotism.”

Trump is now running for president again. When he announced his candidacy, he stated that he “need[s] every patriot on board because this is not just a campaign, this is a quest to save our country.”

One week later he dined in Mar-a-Lago with Nick Fuentes, a self-described nationalist who’s been banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and other platforms for using racist and antisemitic language.

Afterward, Trump confirmed that meeting but did not denounce Fuentes, despite calls for him to do so.

The words nationalism and patriotism are sometimes used as synonyms, such as when Trump and his supporters describe his America First agenda. But many political scientists, including me, don’t typically see those two terms as equivalent – or even compatible.

There is a difference, and it’s important, not just to scholars but to regular citizens as well.

Devotion to a people

To understand what nationalism is, it’s useful to understand what a nation is – and isn’t.

A nation is a group of people who share a history, culture, language, religion or some combination thereof.

A country, which is sometimes called a state in political science terminology, is an area of land that has its own government.

A nation-state is a homogeneous political entity mostly comprising a single nation. Nation-states are rare, because nearly every country is home to more than one national group. One example of a nation-state would be North Korea, where almost all residents are ethnic Koreans.

The United States is neither a nation nor a nation-state. Rather, it is a country of many different groups of people who have a variety of shared histories, cultures, languages and religions.

Some of those groups are formally recognized by the federal government, such as the Navajo Nation and the Cherokee Nation. Similarly, in Canada, the French-speaking Québécois are recognized as being a distinct “nation within a united Canada.”

Nationalism is, per one dictionary definition, “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” It is a person’s strong affinity for those who share the same history, culture, language or religion. Scholars understand nationalism as exclusive, boosting one identity group over – and at times in direct opposition to – others.

The Oath Keepers and Proud Boys – 10 of whom were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol – are both examples of white nationalist groups, which believe that immigrants and people of color are a threat to their ideals of civilization.

Trump has described the events that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, as having occurred “Peacefully & Patrioticly”. He has described those who have been imprisoned as “great patriots” and has said that he would pardon “a large portion of them” if elected in 2024.

There are many other nationalisms beyond white nationalism. The Nation of Islam, for instance, is an example of a Black nationalist group. The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have both characterized it as a Black supremacist hate group for its anti-white prejudices.

In addition to white and Black racial nationalisms, there are also ethnic and lingustic nationalisms, which typically seek greater autonomy for – and the eventual independence of – certain national groups. Examples include the Bloc Québécois, the Scottish Nationalist Party and Plaid Cymru – the Party of Wales, which are nationalist political parties that respectively advocate for the Québécois of Québéc, the Scots of Scotland and the Welsh of Wales.

Devotion to a place

In contrast to nationalism’s loyalty for or devotion to one’s nation, patriotism is, per the same dictionary, “love for or devotion to one’s country.” It comes from the word patriot, which itself can be traced back to the Greek word patrios, which means “of one’s father.”

In other words, patriotism has historically meant a love for and devotion to one’s fatherland, or country of origin.

Patriotism encompasses devotion to the country as a whole – including all the people who live within it. Nationalism refers to devotion to only one group of people over all others.

An example of patriotism would be Martin Luther King Jr.‘s “I Have a Dream” speech, in which he recites the first verse of the patriotic song “America (My Country ‘Tis of Thee).” In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King describes “nationalist groups” as being “made up of people who have lost faith in America.”

George Orwell, the author of “Animal Farm” and “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” describes patriotism as “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life.”

He contrasted that with nationalism, which he describes as “the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.”

Nationalism vs. patriotism

Adolf Hitler’s rise in Germany was accomplished by perverting patriotism and embracing nationalism. According to Charles de Gaulle, who led Free France against Nazi Germany during World War II and later became president of France, “Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”

The tragedy of the Holocaust was rooted in the nationalistic belief that certain groups of people were inferior. While Hitler is a particularly extreme example, in my own research as a human rights scholar, I have found that even in contemporary times, countries with nationalist leaders are more likely to have bad human rights records.

After World War II, President Harry Truman signed the Marshall Plan, which would provide postwar aid to Europe. The intent of the program was to help European countries “break away from the self-defeating actions of narrow nationalism.”

For Truman, putting America first did not mean exiting the global stage and sowing division at home with nationalist actions and rhetoric. Rather, he viewed the “principal concern of the people of the United States” to be “the creation of conditions of enduring peace throughout the world.” For him, patriotically putting the interests of his country first meant fighting against nationalism.

This view is in line with that of French President Emmanuel Macron, who has stated that “patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism.”

“Nationalism,” he says, “is a betrayal of patriotism.”

This commentary originally appeared in The Conversation.

Reminder: Eric Greitens was never exonerated | Opinion

Joshua Holzer — Thu, 03 Mar 2022 12:30:06 +0000

Eric Greitens addresses the media after filing to run in the Missouri Senate primary on Feb. 22, 2022, at the James C Kirkpatrick State Information Center in Jefferson City (Madeline Carter/Missouri Independent).

As the race to replace retiring Sen. Roy Blunt continues to heat up, it’s important to remind the public that disgraced former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens has not been “completely exonerated,” as he often likes to profess.

To review: in January 2018, Greitens admitted to having an extramarital affair and was subsequently investigated for blackmail and assault. The following month, he was formally charged, and that April, a bipartisan report was released by the Missouri House Special Investigative Committee on Oversight which detailed graphic allegations against Greitens.

This prompted then-Attorney General Josh Hawley to call for Greitens to “resign immediately,” which he ended up doing a little over a month later.

Parallel to these developments, Greitens was also investigated for misconduct related to his 2016 gubernatorial campaign.

Ultimately, the Missouri Ethics Commission “found no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Eric Greitens, individually, and no evidence that Gov. Greitens knew of the…violations.” Greitens has since latched onto this statement as proof of having being “completely exonerated” of all wrongdoing — with regards to both the ethics commission’s investigation and the Missouri House’s investigation into blackmail and assault.

First, these were two separate investigations. Being “exonerated” after one investigation does not imply blanket absolution with regards to both investigations.

Second, Greitens’ claims that he’s been “completely exonerated” by the ethics commission aren’t accurate. Not being charged with a crime is not the same as being “exonerated.” Furthermore, the investigation did result in the “Greitens campaign agree[ing] to pay fines totaling over $178,000,” which isn’t exactly an sign of guiltlessness.

Yet, when conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt brought up the former governor’s “multiple allegations of misconduct,” Greitens maintained that he’d “been fully exonerated” as the ethics commission “found no evidence of any wrongdoing.”

When Hewitt pressed Greitens about conflating the ethics commission investigation regarding campaign violations with the bipartisan Missouri House investigation that led to a graphic report detailing allegations of violent sexual misconduct, Greitens continued to defend his innocence.

Since that interview, Hewitt has stated that Greitens is “a deeply-flawed individual” and that it would be “a doomed race” if he emerged as the victor of the upcoming Republican primary.

Karl Rove, the political strategist often credited with George W. Bush’s 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns, argues that supporting someone who “breaks his marriage vows and conducts multiple affairs and has one with his hairdresser and ties her up in the basement of his own home and takes pictures of her” is “not a winning message for Republicans.”

Defiantly, Greitens declares that “[w]hen we’re able to look back with pride, we can look forward with confidence.” Since the advent of “alternative facts,” politicians like Greitens have shown a willingness to move beyond bending the truth towards peddling a parallel version of it.

According to Greitens, “[r]ight now, our country needs fighters,” and he’s “here to fight.”

Given his own history of running from a fight by resigning as governor, rather than face the prospect of being impeached and removed from office by his own party, it appears that after pushing lies for so long, even Greitens is confused about what’s true.

Conservative Missourians should be concerned that Greitens winning the Republican primary presents a very real possibility that Democrats can flip a Senate seat that has been under GOP control since 1987. Greitens could very well be the next Todd Akin, who famously helped elect Democrat Claire McCaskill in 2012 after making a comment about “legitimate rape.”

Liberal Missourians should be concerned about a resurgent Greitens because despite all the baggage, he could end up winning the general election.

Either way, Missourians from all political stripes should be able to unite behind the danger that Eric Greitens poses.

Eric Greitens’ run for Senate in Missouri represents a perversion of patriotism | Opinion

Joshua Holzer — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 12:55:53 +0000

Former Gov. Eric Greitens delivers the annual State of the State address to the Missouri House in January 2018. The same night as the speech, allegations of violent sexual misconduct during a 2015 affair were first reported by KMOV-TV (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

Results from a Saint Louis University poll suggests that disgraced former Missouri Governor Eric Greitens is the frontrunner in the race to fill retiring Sen. Roy Blunt’s seat.

While former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has recently resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, Greitens has mounted a political comeback since his 2018 resignation following a Republican-led investigation that detailed graphic sexual allegations.

Since that time, Greitens has insisted that he’s “been completely exonerated,” though even the GOP isn’t so sure.

Nonetheless, by tapping into patriotic sentiment, Greitens has been able to convince a large swath of voters that he’s the candidate best equipped to “help revive our Republic.” At events, he claims that he is “the true conservative and patriot in this race.”

However, rather than condemning the events of January 6 without reservation, Greitens has sought to highlight “unanswered questions about statistically impossible election results,” even though former Attorney General William Barr – a Donald Trump appointee and former loyalist – declared that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Shortly after January 6, Greitens helped to promote the baseless claim that Antifa was behind the Capital breach, and he still regularly refers to Trump as “the President,” sowing doubt in the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

More recently, Greitens has travelled to Arizona to tour its audit of the 2020 election. Notably this ‘audit’ has been overseen by a Florida firm called the Cyber Ninjas. Their CEO has previously promoted the conspiracy that last year’s election was stolen, and his company has zero experience conducting an election audit.

Despite such red flags, Greitens claims that the audit has been conducted with “the same level of integrity, quality, operational excellence, that you’d find in the Navy when they’re doing maintenance on a nuclear reactor.” Given that the military tends to avoid partisan squabbles, it’s probably safe to say that the Navy would rather not be roped into such a comparison, especially one so ridiculously hyperbolic.

Greitens, though, has a track record of trying to hijack the public’s respect for the military, much to the chagrin of some his brothers in arms.

Part of the SEAL ethos reads: “I do not advertise the nature of my work, nor seek recognition for my actions.” Yet, Greitens has repeatedly sought to capitalize on his service through macho campaign ads or by preforming stunts, such as rappelling from the rafters into an arena next to a huge American flag while being introduced as “a former Navy SEAL” and “military hero.”

During an interview with Stephen Colbert, Greitens coyly refused to say whether or not he was part of the team that killed Osama bin Laden, despite the fact that he never actually served with SEALs in combat. Political strategist Karl Rove, who is often credited with George W. Bush’s 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns, notes that while Greitens “served honorably,” the fact that “he can’t just admit the nature of his service is…indicative…that [the] man is a deeply-flawed individual.”

Trump avoided military service as a result of bogus “bone spurs.” He argued that the late Republican John McCain wasn’t a war hero because he was captured. He called Americans who died in war “losers” and “suckers.” He referred to the crowd that gathered before storming the Capital as “loving.”

Greitens has calculated that remaining in lockstep with Trump is his best chance for success, and as such, he has aligned himself with perhaps one of America’s least patriotic presidents. Yet his campaign also rests upon leveraging his SEAL-ness so as to be seen as the most “patriotic” candidate in a crowded Senate race. In order to resolve this inherent contradiction, Greitens has essentially redefined patriotism from “devotion to one’s country” to the blind worship of one man.

When Greitens joined the Navy he took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” In prostrating himself before an individual who has repeatedly sought to subvert the constitutional order, Greitens has found himself in violation of his military oath, no matter how star-spangled awesome he may once have seemed.