The Washington Post on Sunday called for the elimination of the Electoral College. The editorial board says it’s time for America to be covered by the majority without the protections for the minority.
From the editorial:
The electoral college, whatever virtues it may have had for the Founding Fathers, is no longer tenable for American democracy.
We write this with full awareness of the challenges of adopting a new system, with respect for many of the people who continue to argue against a switch, and with awareness that any change may have unintended consequences. Right now, our presidential elections are conducted by 51 separate authorities, each with its own rules on registration, mail-in balloting and more. Each state counts its own ballots, and each decides when recounts are needed. All of that would have to change if the president were chosen based on the national vote count. Additionally, electoral college math induces candidates to pay attention to voters in some small states who might otherwise be ignored.
But why should Iowa’s biofuel lobby get more of a hearing than, say, California’s artichoke lobby? Small states already have disproportionate clout in our government because of the Senate, in which Wyoming’s fewer than 600,000 presidents have as much representation as California’s 39.5 million. We see no particular reason voters in purple states such as Wisconsin should be valued more than voters in red states such as Mississippi or blue states such as Washington…
…Americans are not going to be satisfied with leaders who have been rejected by a majority of voters, and they’re right not to be. It’s time to let the majority rule.
They want all of these people in red to be ruled by the people in blue:
People in California and New York shouldn’t matter more than those in Montana, Kentucky, or Iowa. Those who live in “flyover” shouldn’t have their voices squashed because they live in rural areas and are not densely populated.
The reason the Electoral College is so important is that it makes smaller states, like Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, count.
IT WOULD LEAD TO TYRANNY
See all the red on this map that gave the win to Donald Trump in 2016? It would be gone under a Democracy. Without the Electoral College, we are no longer a Republic. We then become a Democracy.
The exact opposite of what Democrats claim would happen. All the votes of the smaller states would become meaningless.
Without the Electoral College, we become a mobocracy — a democracy — which James Madison called the “most vile form of government.”
“… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths,” he wrote.
Democracy leads to mobocracies, the tyranny of the majority, and eventually dictatorship.
Clinton would have won with only these areas:
O’REILLY WEIGHED IN
O’Reilly said in 2016 that the left wants whites to lose their power and the left’s focus on race and diversity is why “white men have largely abandoned the Democrats.” The left says O’Reilly just saying that is racist.
However, why do they call all whites ‘racists’ and say we are all ‘white supremacists?’
“The left sees white privilege in America as an oppressive force that must be done away with. Therefore white working-class voters must be marginalized, and what better way to do that than center the voting power in the cities,” O’Reilly said.