Well, this year, it certainly isn’t the Rampaging Moonbats of the Progressive Liberal Democrat Party. This is a big change from just 4 years ago when they all thought that the Electoral College was a simply smashing idea.
This was before the utter, total crushing defeat of the Progressive Liberal Democrats Chosen One, Felonia von Pantsuit. Now, all those who once loved the Electoral College want it banded, crushed, abolished or otherwise ended. One of the biggest of the hypocrites is the Liberal web site, Slate. Four years ago, they were all for the Electoral College when it supported Barack Obama. Now that it’s gone for Donald Trump, well, here’s what Fox News has to say on the subject:
What a difference four years and Donald Trump’s victory make for the liberal site Slate. Slate published a piece in November 2012 called “In Defense of the Electoral College” that lists five reasons why the system, which allows state electors to ultimately select the future president whether or not that person won the popular vote, is actually great for democracy. Those reasons include the “certainty of outcome” and being able to avoid run-off elections.
Of course, that was published in the wake of President Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney. The left-leaning site is singing a very different tune this year.
Singing? Oh I wouldn’t call the noises these moonbats are making singing. Screeching like nails across a chalkboard would be a better description.
Slate published a new piece a few days after this year’s election calling the Electoral College an “instrument of white supremacy and sexism.”
I followed the link and read the article. It’s a lot worse than Fox let on. The author of the column, Mark Joseph Stern, cherry picks from the historical record, and utterly fails to understand why the founders created the Electoral College in the first place. Basically, it was another check on large population areas rampaging over the smaller population areas. This was also why the House and Senate were created. The Senate was meant to protect the rights of the states and the House was meant to represent the people.
The column Stern wrote was right after Felonia was blown out of the water. He has since written another column on the Electoral College where he explains how the Liberals got the EC all wrong. This was in regards to the Moonbats trying to force the members of the Electoral College to become “Faithless” and instead of voting as their states did, would instead “Vote their hearts” and give the election to Felonia von Pantsuit.
In his column, titled “How Liberals Got the Electoral College Wrong”, Stern writes how a:
strange thing happened in the weeks between the presidential election and Monday’s meetings of the electors who have now anointed Donald Trump as our 45th president: A bunch of liberals fell back in love with the Electoral College.
You can tell from his opening, that he still hasn’t gotten over his depression over Felonia’s loss.
Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig led the charge with his attempt to convince electors that Donald Trump should not become president. Lessig argued that the Electoral College was “meant to be a circuit breaker—just in case the people go crazy,” and that Trump’s many flaws, combined with his large popular vote loss, should compel electors to vote for Hillary Clinton instead of the man who won the most votes in the Electoral College.
I’ve been following Lessig’s screeches with regards to the Electoral College. Right up until the 19th, he was saying that there was a very good chance that enough Electors would “flip” to take the election away from Donald Trump. He was also offering to provide legal assistance to any elector who did flip. Lessig was dead wrong of course, and his remarks really concern me.
He is a person who is teaching future lawyers how the law and the Constitution work, and yet he was doing everything he could to thwart the very system he’s supposed to be teaching. It looks like Stern actually agrees with me.
These arguments, (Stern lists things like blocking a demagogue), may seem plausible. But in reality, they are specious, ahistorical, and counterproductive. The Electoral College is not a safety valve meant to prevent the election of demagogues and Manchurian candidates, nor is it a deliberative body whose collective intelligence guides it toward a sage decision.
Nope, it isn’t, and if Stern had stopped right there, we would have been in full agreement. But, he didn’t.
It is an anachronism, a deeply undemocratic product of a compromise with slave states that serves no real purpose today. The only real role of the Electoral College is to dilute the votes of American citizens who happen to live in larger states and who are these days disproportionately Asian and Latino. Unless liberals want to defend that, they should stop pretending the Electoral College provides any benefit to our modern democracy and devote their energy to abolishing it altogether.
Stern then goes into another series of comments regarding the debates held in the Federalist papers and discussions of the system being developed by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and their correspondences. Specifically, Stern, and those pushing to use the Electoral College to deny the presidency to Donald Trump were looking at Federalist Papers: No. 68. After a long back and forth with references to the Federalist papers, Stern comes up with this:
But wait, the counterargument goes, Clinton won more votes than Trump. Shouldn’t electors be able to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote?
And his answer, surprising no one is:
Yes, they should be, and if enough states pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, they will be obligated to do so. This agreement would bind states’ electors to the winner of the popular vote; it would take effect the moment enough states—those whose electoral votes total 270—have passed it. The NPVIC is a precise, rational tool to address the Electoral College’s obsolescence.
The link above leads to yet another column by Stern and discusses how to get around the need for a constitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College. The NPVIC is a constitutionally questionable way of making sure only someone who won the popular vote would win the election. If this compact were in effect, the theory goes, Hillary Clinton, thanks to California and New York, would be the president.
And there’s the rub. If you take California out of the equation, Felonia von Pantsuit would have lost the popular vote. In fact, if you look at maps of how counties in the United States voted in the recent election, you will see that most of the counties went for Donald Trump. It was only the counties that were densely populated, and generally Democrat controlled, that went for Clinton.
Now consider the issue if the winner was chosen by the popular vote alone. To begin with, there are some very real concerns regarding the vote in California. Thanks to Jill Stein’s demand for a recount in previously blue states that went for Trump, some serious cases of election fraud were found, all of it in areas that went for von Pantsuit.
It has been postulated that as many as 2 million votes in California may have been cast by people who are not legally entitled to vote. (They aren’t citizens or they have lost the right to vote due to court actions) If this is actually the case, then Felonia’s “Popular vote win” goes right down the tubes.
There is another reason why it’s a bad idea to scrap the Electoral College that Stern and the other moonbats miss. It forces candidates to campaign in far more states then they would if they were only trying to win the overall popular vote totals. If you look at where Trump and von Pantsuit campaigned, you will see they covered most of the states in the union. If you go with Majority Rules, then you will see them only in the most populace states.
Stern and all the other Progressive Liberal Democrats are unable to grasp that their socialist totalitarian views were rejected. People like Stern have literally nothing in common with people such as myself, and not only have no interest in discussing things with people who disagree with them, they want them outright banned and suppressed.
Here’s what people like Stern do not and can not understand. Majority Rules means two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. All the areas that Stern and the other Progressive Liberal Democrats want to ignore, they are also the areas with “Sheep” who are very well armed.
The United States may have dodged a bullet November 8th when Donald Trump won the election. While the moonbats were making death threats against the Electors who wouldn’t flip and vote for Hillary Clinton, it never crossed their minds what would have happened if they had succeeded.
If they had flipped the electors and they had voted to put Clinton in the white house, it would have meant instant civil war. I mean that literally. All the “Red State Rednecks” who voted for Trump and watched him win within the system would have exploded in rage, and they would have the means to do something about it.
If Hillary Clinton had won the general, considering what she had stated she was going to do, (repeal the 1st and 2nd Amendments, either through legislation, regulation or the courts), the odds of a civil war starting on her watch were very high. Not right away. It would have been at least a year before she did something to set people off. Somehow, I don’t think people like Mark Joseph Stern ever considered what would happen in such a circumstance. Other have. Others who actually make their living figuring things like this out. Now that Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States, no one, thankfully, will ever know.
Thatisall
~The Angry Webmaster~
[yasr_visitor_votes size=”large”]
Damn! I didn’t plan on this being so long! I just got started and couldn’t stop.