Pages

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Get Rid of the Electoral College? Bite your Tongue!

In the wake of Trump's election, I see whiny Progressives and even some #NeverTrump Republicans talking about getting rid of the Electoral College.

Eliminating the electoral college will cause the United States to be absolutely controlled by the Marxist-dominated big cities: NY, LA, DC, SF, Seattle, etc. Since the 17th Amendment, the electoral college is almost the only thing left giving the states any power at all in the Federal government. 

If anything, federal judges need to stop states like CA, NY, NJ, CT, etc. from giving all their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner.   This is unconstitutional, as it subverts the express purpose of the Electoral College.   Also, we need to put a stop to "winner take all" electoral votes, which only serve to empower the big cities within each state, and dilute the influence of rural counties. Farmers and backwoods engineers deserve just as much say in the operation of the government as the welfare-addicted millions in the big coastal cities.

UPDATE: I'm not alone in supporting the E.C.

2 comments:

  1. I wouldn't describe giving all of your electoral votes to the national vote winner as unconstitutional, since it was always intended for the Constitution to be completed by laws, regulations, and ruling that actually put it into practice, but certainly it isn't what was intended.

    But what WAS intended hasn't been used since the early presidencies (Adams/Jefferson in 1797 if I understand right): what we currently have IS a popular vote, with the electoral college serving as nothing more than window dressing to add a bit of complexity to the entire affair: what you fear is already here.

    The system is SUPPOSED to result in the Electors choosing the President & Vice President THEMSELVES, and is INTENTIONALLY representative instead of direct. It got abandoned largely because everyone basically agreed tha Adams/Jefferson wasn't a good match, and partially because Electors voted against their constituents (the first US Trump was Andrew Jackson, and I'm sure you know what I'm pointing at). Whether we should go back to that, I don't know, but if we do then I at least would prefer a multi-phase system with parties kicked to the curb: vote for Electors (if you don't know them from local politics, then why would you vote for them?), let them choose several candidate-pairs (I'd suggest the top-5 with current US politics, each Elector gets only one vote), select the president from the Elector-validated pairs. I figure that requiring 5 choices from the Electors and only allowing each a single vote gets rid of the chance of collusion, since it waters things down too much.

    ReplyDelete