Townhall.com
Walter Wiliams

Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, seeking to represent New York's 14th Congressional District, has called for the abolition of the Electoral College. Her argument came on the heels of the Senate's confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. She was lamenting the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, nominated by George W. Bush, and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, nominated by Donald Trump, were court appointments made by presidents who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College vote.

Hillary Clinton has long been a critic of the Electoral College. Just recently, she wrote in The Atlantic, "You won't be surprised to hear that I passionately believe it's time to abolish the Electoral College."

Subjecting presidential elections to the popular vote sounds eminently fair to Americans who have been miseducated by public schools and universities. Worse yet, the call to eliminate the Electoral College reflects an underlying contempt for our Constitution and its protections for personal liberty. Regarding miseducation, the founder of the Russian Communist Party, Vladimir Lenin, said, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." His immediate successor, Josef Stalin, added, "Education is a weapon whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

A large part of Americans' miseducation is the often heard claim that we are a democracy. The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the two most fundamental documents of our nation -- the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, our Constitution -- in Article 4, Section 4 -- guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." The Founding Fathers had utter contempt for democracy. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, said that in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Virginia Gov. Edmund Randolph said that "in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams wrote: "Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide." At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton said: "We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty" is found not in "the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments. ... If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy."

For those too dense to understand these arguments, ask yourselves: Does the Pledge of Allegiance say "to the democracy for which it stands" or "to the republic for which it stands"? Did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song "Battle Hymn of the Republic"? Should she have titled it "Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?

The Founders saw our nation as being composed of sovereign states that voluntarily sought to join a union under the condition that each state admitted would be coequal with every other state. The Electoral College method of choosing the president and vice president guarantees that each state, whether large or small in area or population, has some voice in selecting the nation's leaders. Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote, the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states. They would be states such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which contain 134.3 million people, or 41 percent of our population. Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Delaware. Why? They have only 5.58 million Americans, or 1.7 percent of the U.S. population. We would no longer be a government "of the people"; instead, our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states.

Political satirist H.L. Mencken said, "The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic."

Link

How about restricting the voting franchise to male property owners?

There is no real/honest debate here, because the losing side (the GDCs) is always the one wanting to abolish it. When was the last time we heard the winning side calling for abolishing the EC?

There are quite a few liberals that would like to abolish the EC, but think there is some way to work around the Constitutional Amendment process. Let them try.

The GDC's just want power and control, and if burning the Constitution gets it done for them, they are fine with that.

Now they are pushing for expansion of the federal courts, and a lot of new judges. They think that is a way for them to get their statist agenda implemented, through the judiciary branch.

The electoral college is never going away. It would require 38 states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution (after all the other requirements), and that won't happen.

The more worrisome development is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact under which participating states agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. This compact, which is designed to undermine the electoral college, will take effect once joined by states holding a cumulative total of more than 270 electoral votes. Current adoptees include 11 states holding 172 electoral votes, and legislation to join the compact is being considered in 4 other states holding 69 electoral votes. It is certainly not inconceivable that the compact could reach its goal.

There are certainly constitutional questions about the compact and there may be a requirement for approval by Congress, but the compact represents a much more immediate and plausible threat to the Electoral College than a constitutional amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
There is no real/honest debate here, because the losing side (the GDCs) is always the one wanting to abolish it. When was the last time we heard the winning side calling for abolishing the EC?

boom. period.

no debate to have.

-------------------------------

Anyone calling for EC abolishment is an ignoramus and/ or aGDC.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
There are quite a few liberals that would like to abolish the EC, but think there is some way to work around the Constitutional Amendment process. Let them try.

The easiest way to circumvent the effect of the EC would be to have each state adopt proportional voting by the Electors, based on the popular vote within the state. This would not overcome the built-in bias for the small states, but would come close to equalizing the will of the overall population. So far, only a few states have adopted this principle, but it is a possibility.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Anyone calling for EC abolishment is an ignoramus and/ or aGDC.

Yup.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Anyone calling for EC abolishment is an ignoramus and/ or aGDC.

Not to mention a product of our failing education system.

Jim

Cluelessness is rampant

If you really feel that way about the electoral college, shouldn't you also be pushing to eliminate the Senate?

I think the operative theory in Donkeyville is that if you really want to stack the Supreme Court, then you should also be against the Electoral College. Silly, either way.

The commies want a democracy.

Our majority originalist Supreme Court will not let that happen.

quote:

Originally posted by zingo:
If you really feel that way about the electoral college, shouldn't you also be pushing to eliminate the Senate?

They're working on that, too

My state of Wyoming has been maligned repeatedly by the Dems since the election. Wyoming gets 3 whole electoral votes and Californica gets 55, but they say relative population numbers mean that Wyoming’s votes count for more. Furthermore, it now bothers Californica’s Dems that they only get two senators, just like Wyoming. I’m still trying to gin up some sympathy. Whenever I hear the loser’s argument for abolishing the EC, I think of the election maps that show red across the vast majority of counties in the country. Yeah, all of us should be subordinated by the fucked-up Dem population centers.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats: Furthermore, it now bothers Californica’s Dems that they only get two senators, just like Wyoming.

The fact that Vermont with 75,000 more people than WY also gets 2 doesn't seem to bother them nearly as much

They assume that the voting and campaigning would be the same if the rules were different.
Both voter and the politicians behavior would be different if the popular vote determined the winner.
Republicans would campaign more in large states like California and New York if it wasn't winner take all. And the voters would too. There and in conservative states.
How it would all shake out, who knows but it would be a different approach.
Trump just looked at the rules and ran a smarter campaign. Maybe GW Bush did too. The popular vote wasn't the real goal, the electoral vote was.
Some people play by the rules they wish were in place, others play by the rules that are in place.

'

quote:

There are quite a few liberals that would like to abolish the EC, but think there is some way to work around the Constitutional Amendment process. Let them try.

'

Ahhh yes, that pesky constitution. A continual fly in the ointment to our left wing friends. Times like these illustrate the wisdom and forethought of our founders. And Kavanaugh on the court is a real kick to their zipper applied today instead of pre 1800.