Democrats and The Electoral College

The Democrats don't even want to follow their own rules if they think it will get them what they say they want. Now, I will grant that this happens more frequently in presidential election years where the Democratic candidate is NOT the incumbent (like he is this year), but I'll still bet that you'll hear some Democratic marionette decry the Electoral College as being (1) arcane and confusing, (2) being unfair and wrong for the country, and (3) bring a process that gives an unfair advantage to voters in less populous states.

And every time I hear the whines and bleats from the Democratic sheeple, I wonder how these people ever got as far as they have in politics, but then I remember … they're Democrats.

"Boys and girls together mistake conceit for pride, ambition for illusion, dreams for self-delusion."

Now I don't want to get off on a rant here but it seems to me that the primary motivation for the Democratic Party is the idea of "safety in numbers". I mean, what the hell, it works for ants, right? Statistically speaking, it makes sense for them to want to eliminate the Electoral College because doing so would give them a monster boost in their ability to control the Executive Branch. But let's disassemble each of their arguments against the Electoral College and show them for the house of cards that they are.

"Pound the drums with martial beat, pound the streets with marching feet, wounded pride, distorted eyes, paint the night with battle cries."

Let's start with the idea that the Electoral College gives an unfair advantage to voters in less populous states. That is absolutely true. There's really no way to deny that because THAT WAS THE WHOLE IDEA!

We, the United States of America and our individual states - starting with the original 13 - are separate entities. The ideas that work in Texas don't always work in California or New York, and vice versa. So, it stands to reason that the ideas that work in California, or New York, or even here in Texas, might not work in Montana or New Hampshire where the population is significantly lower. It is therefore quite understandably unacceptable to states with smaller populations to have their affairs directed by other states simply because more people live there. But as long as we're suggesting fallacious hypotheticals, let's scale this idea up. Suppose there was a United Countries of Earth. How would we (USA; population 333.29 million) like the idea of China (population 1.439 billion, or 4 times that of the USA) or India (population 1.38 billion, also 4 times that of the USA) running the show? Could we accept that, or would we want a leveling factor? Think about it.

"Boy before the mirror checks his camouflage, polishes his armor and the Charger in the garage."

Let's move on to the idea of the Electoral College being "unfair and wrong for the country". The most commonly cited populist argument is that "a democracy is one person, one vote" and that "democracy", but that definition, does not factor in states, only the individual voter. But that idea itself is based on the idea that the United States is actually a "democracy", which it isn't: it's a Constitutional Republic. The primary difference between the two is that we (as citizens) do not actually make the decisions. We elect people to make those decisions for us - hopefully, knowledgeable and responsible people.

But if we look at the "one person, one vote" idea, it also starts to break down under scrutiny. If this were actually the measure by which a president is elected to office, then ANY presidential candidate, regardless of party affiliation, would only need to concentrate their efforts on about 20 to 25 large cities to absolutely ensure that they would attain the necessary threshold of popular votes required.

But if the President is supposed to represent ALL of the people, then the "one person, one vote" idea is also a logical fallacy because, in this case, the President would only really represent the majority of the people, and that majority is concentrated in the cities. And here's why they don't want you to look at the idea too deeply; the "one person, one vote" argument only benefits urban areas and disenfranchises rural areas. The Framers understood this, and that's why they set up the system the way that they did. According to the Framers (in Federalist Papers #68), the Electoral college exists to limit the opportunity of factions (i.e., political parties, which they referred to as "the tyranny of the majority") to select a president that may be unfit to hold office (e.g., His Orangeness). The College is not always successful, but nothing ever is.

"All puffed up with vanity, we see what we want to see. To the beautiful and the wise the mirror always lies."

Finally, saving the best for last, let's look at the idea that the Electoral College is "arcane and confusing". If the Democrats are so absolutely convinced that a national popular vote is the best way to select the President of the United States, then why doesn't the Democratic Party simply hold a single national primary to select their presidential nominee? I mean, if you think about it, that would simply be a case of "putting their money where their mouths are", right?

Looking at the process that the Democratic Party uses to choose its own national candidate, how can it be called anything other than "arcane and confusing?" The last truly contested Democratic nomination race was way back in 2008 between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. (Keep in mind that the DNC requires a candidate to receive more than 50% of the delegate count to receive their nomination.) When all of the delegates that were selected via the state primaries and caucuses were totaled up, Clinton had received 48.1% of the delegate count and Obama had received 47.4% of the delegate count, but neither had received enough delegates to win at the convention.

Enter the "super delegates" (now called 'automatic delegates') - elected or party officials (i.e., an elitist class) established to "fix problems" when the electorate gets out of hand. These "super delegates" overwhelmingly sided with Obama and he became the 2008 nominee. And in 2016, it was pretty clear that the DNC had put a little more than its thumb on the scale to ensure that Clinton prevailed over Sanders.

But what you don't hear is that this process should be replaced by a single national primary which points to one relatively simple conclusion. If the Democrats are so absolutely convinced that a straight-up popular vote election with a "winner-take-all" outcome is right and good for nation to select its president, then they ought to at least demonstrate a pretense of the courage of their convictions and apply that same standard to themselves. Until that day comes to pass, Americans will have to accept that their posturing on this issue is just that - posturing.