Posted on 12/03/2019 5:53:57 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren reiterated her view that the Electoral College should be abolished and U.S. presidents should be elected by popular vote. “My goal is to get elected—but I plan to be the last American president to be elected by the Electoral College. I want my second term to be elected by direct vote,” she tweeted.
In the accompanying video clip, she said, “Call me old fashioned, but I think the person who gets the most votes should win.”
Warren has a curious idea of what counts as “old fashioned,” since her position on the Electoral College puts her at odds with the decidedly old fashioned Founding Fathers, who rightly worried about what James Madison called the “tyranny of the majority.”
Democrats are apparently unbothered by this possibility, not least because they believe they’ve secured a permanent majority and, if they could just seize power, they would govern as benign rulers.
What’s standing in their way is nothing less than our constitutional system.
That’s why you see Democrats coming out against not just the Electoral College but also the Senate and the Supreme Court. Why should Wyoming or Iowa have two votes in the Senate, so the thinking goes, when so few people live there? Why should five Supreme Court justices decide contentious questions about, say, gun rights? (Expect to hear howls of protest from the left if the gun rights case the justices heard on Monday, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, doesn’t go their way.)
It’s not just Warren. According to one poll earlier this year, 60 percent of Democratic voters support abolishing the Electoral College, and much of the mainstream media seems to agree. After the 2016 election, The New York Times attacked the Electoral College as an “antiquated mechanism,” Time magazine published an article arguing the Electoral College was designed to protect slavery, and E. J. Dionne Jr. of The Washington Post compared it to a game of chance in a casino.
Since the 2016 election, 15 states (all of them blue) have joined the National Popular Vote movement, an interstate compact that would, if enough states joined it, award all of a state’s electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote, regardless of who the voters in that state actually voted for.
Although it’s mostly been Democrats inveighing against the Electoral College for the past two decades, Donald Trump came out against it after President Obama won reelection in 2012, calling it a “disaster” and arguing for its abolishment, but changed his mind after 2016, calling it “genius.”
Warren Really Wants a New American Regime Warren’s opposition to the Electoral College is more principled than Trump’s. Although couched in the facile rhetoric of “every vote counts,” she means just the opposite. Under a system of direct democracy, votes in places like Wyoming, Iowa, and every other small state wouldn’t really count at all. The country would effectively be ruled by New York and California—and indeed by the residents of the largest cities in those states.
That’s what Warren and the Democrats really want, they just can’t say it. They know that most large cities are blue and that the ongoing urbanization of America would give them a huge advantage if they were able to run their votes up in those districts and ignore the rest of the country.
It certainly would have been enough to put Hillary Clinton in the White House. In fact, the collapse of Democrats’ “blue wall” in 2016 is largely what’s behind the current assault on the Electoral College. Competing for the votes of working-class whites in Pennsylvania and Michigan doesn’t appeal to progressive 2020 candidates like Warren for the simple reason that she’s unlikely to win their votes, and she knows it.
The argument against the Electoral College is therefore really an argument against the role of the states in our constitutional system, and against the scheme of federalism in general. The irony is that federalism is the one thing that might assuage rising political tensions in America.
The people of Oklahoma are going to arrange their affairs differently than the people of Oregon, and will likely seek different things in a presidential candidate. A system that requires candidates to appeal to the widest swath of Americans is more likely to produce a truly national candidate than a system that favors large cities over the rest of the country.
The alternative, what Warren and the Democrats would like to see, is exactly what Madison said it was: a tyranny of the majority. In this case, it would be a tyranny whose enormous power was concentrated in Washington, D.C., to an even greater extent than it already is.
Under a system based on direct democracy, federalism would wither and die. As the historian Allen Guelzo noted last year in National Affairs, once we eliminate the Electoral College, “there would be no sense in having a Senate (which, after all, represents the interests of the states), and eventually, no sense in even having states, except as administrative departments of the central government.”
No wonder progressives like Warren want to do away with the Electoral College. It’s the first domino in a chain reaction that would lead to the overthrow of our constitutional system and the beginning of a new American regime—one that knows no constraints on its power and has no mechanisms for protecting the rights of the minority.
Call me old fashioned, but I’ll take federalism and the Founders’ constitutional system any day.
But, but, but it's working sooo well in Kalifornia!
She don’t need no stinking constitution.
Why give them half? How about just giving them the <500 counties that Hillary won?
She is dumb as a pile of rocks, even the ones in her head.
Hope I didn’t not run out of ammo!
We haven’t deserved it since Roe vs. Wade passed.
Pocahonkey also said she was a native American, too. She’s just a crazy old bat.
‘Sen. Elizabeth Warren reiterated her view that the Electoral College should be abolished and U.S. presidents should be elected by popular vote.’
of course she wants this, as she can see perfectly well that the pubs cannot win the popular vote, and with each passing year that truth becomes more obvious...if they could win the national with regularity, the pubs would be pushing to abolish the EC as well...
Delivering the well deserved pain.
And when Trump get popular vote will the state pact still hold?
‘Same goes for New York, Oregon, and Washington at least.’
ditto for VT,MA, CT, RI,DE, NJ, MD, DC,VA, IL, CO, and NM...for a grand total of 209 EV’s...
She will be the last President elected if she wins.
Delusional.
‘She will be the last President elected if she wins.’
eh...?
Amen!
Yea!well I don’t care if she’s President for eight years. Without amending the constitution she’ll never get to vacate the electoral college.
The majority of Americans aren’t stupid and they won’t vote for it.
I’m still not sure if the Equal Rights for woman Amendment has passed after all of these years.
Many states would be ready to secede if this were to happen. Wyoming—N Dakota—S Dakota-—Idaho-—The middle of the country-—which feeds all of the country would be incensed.
Warren wants only the big cities to control voting in the USA.
There is proof of the fallout from no longer teaching AMERICAN History in schools.
These America haters should pack their bags. There’s the door. Use it.
She plans to be the most powerful Dictator , I mean President EVER
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.