Ever since the 2016 election in which Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — the highly favored contender to take home the “W” — was crushed like an insect by Republican Donald Trump, the left seems to have gone off the rails.
Increasingly, the target of their hate has spread from the new president to our nation’s electoral college system. Since the electoral college accounts for Trump’s victory, they want to destroy it — and have candidates elected to the highest office in the land by popular vote alone.
There are all kinds of problems with this, of course, but that doesn’t seem to keep the radical progressives from attempting to make a valid case for wrecking the only voting system that actually enables fair representation for all the states in the nation.
See, if the electoral college is trashed, then basically all of the big cities across the country will control the outcome of every major election. The voices of middle America and those in smaller, rural areas will essentially have no voice or say in choosing our leadership and, by extension, the direction our nation takes in the future.
Since large cities are overwhelmingly liberal, that means progressive left-wingers would practically rule the country, which of course is exactly what they want.
Anyway, a pair of political writers recently penned a piece for Politico calling the electoral college a “threat to national security.”
Here’s a few snippets of the insanity:
In Federalist No. 68, his pseudonymous essay on “The Mode of Electing the President,” Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Electoral College could shield the United States “from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” Because of the “transient existence” and dispersed makeup of the electors, he argued, hostile countries would find it too expensive and time-consuming to inject “sinister bias” into the process of choosing a president. At the time, the new American leaders feared meddling from Great Britain, their former colonial master, or perhaps from other powers such as France, and they designed a system to minimize the prospect that Europe’s aging monarchies could seize control of their young democracy.
Hamilton and his colleagues never could have envisioned a year like 2016, when an enemy state—Russia—was able to manipulate America’s election process with stunning effectiveness. But it’s clear the national security rationale for the Electoral College is outdated and therefore it should be retired. Simply put, it enables foreign powers to more easily pierce the very shield Hamilton imagined it would be.
In Hamilton’s day, as he argued, it would have been nearly impossible for a hostile power to co-opt dozens of briefly chosen electors flung across 13 states with primitive roads. But in the social media age, the Electoral College system provides ripe microtargeting grounds for foreign actors who intend to sabotage presidential elections via information and disinformation campaigns, as well as by hacking our voting infrastructure. One reason is that citizens in certain states simply have more voting power than citizens in other states, such as Texas and California. This makes it easier for malign outside forces to direct their efforts.
But what if the national popular vote determined the president instead of the Electoral College? No voter would be more electorally powerful than another. It would be more difficult for a foreign entity to sway many millions of voters scattered across the country than concentrated groups of tens of thousands of voters in just a few states. And it would be more difficult to tamper with voting systems on a nationwide basis than to hack into a handful of databases in crucial swing districts, which could alter an election’s outcome. Yes, a foreign entity could disseminate messages to major cities across the entire country or try to carry out a broad-based cyberattack, but widespread actions of this sort would be not only more resource-intensive, but also more easily noticed, exposed and addressed.
Facebook has already acknowledged that fake users linked to Russia spent $100,000 running political ads on its platform, on polarizing topics such as gay rights, gun control, immigration and race. Some of these ads were aimed at specific geographic areas. But we don’t yet know the full extent of Russia’s microtargeting efforts or whether they involved any cooperation with Donald Trump’s campaign. And definitive answers to these questions may not emerge until Congress and Special Counsel Robert Mueller complete their investigations.
Again with the Russia nonsense? Do these people really believe that Americans are so gullible that they bought into a bunch of political ads and that’s why they didn’t vote for Hillary?
Are liberals really so far gone down the rabbit hole they don’t see the fact that America is tired of suffering at the hands of failed left-wing policies, weak leadership and political correctness?
Why is it so difficult to understand that Hillary lost because she’s constantly embroiled in scandals, caught in lies, and disconnected from the reality that average voters face on a daily basis?
She lost because she was a terrible candidate.
On top of that, this is a republic, built on the idea that everyone should get equal representation. We’re not a democracy, as so many wrongly claim. Democracy is rule by the majority, which often leads to tyranny.
Our system is working just fine the way it is, thank you, and those of us who treasure liberty would like to keep it that way.