In 1950 there were 12 urban areas in the United States that had one million or more citizens. In 2010, 41 had more than one million in population and this number is projected to grow to 53 by 2030 (Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division). And currently more than 85 percent of our population is clustered into cities. Of the ten most populated metropolitan regions touching seven or eight states, all went overwhelmingly for the Democrat in the 2016 presidential election.
Now Senator Elizabeth Warren is hopping around saying almost anything to distinguish her candidacy from the profusion of others running for president.
Sandwiched between her promises of trillion dollar giveaways is a clever ruse to abolish the electoral college.
It will always draw rousing cheers from her audiences.
That is because a few know it would mean Democrats would be elected president into the next millennium. People like Rep Steve Cohen say by selecting the president by popular vote it would be more democratic, but what he really means is it would elect more Democrats. Meanwhile the majority of those wanting to eliminate the electoral college don’t have a clue why we have it and how it protects the minority from dominance by a few regions. This is who they are counting on to back their crafty scheme.
We have the electoral college because we are a representative republic of fifty separate states that work symbiotically together to form a union. We have the Senate for the same reason. Recently I’ve also heard Democrats questioning the makeup of the Senate complaining that California has the same number of senators as Wyoming. Well, wake up and smell the Skinny Latte Californians, a representative republic is what we were given so tyrants would have an almost impossible path to power. Today that includes an equal obstacle for dominance by one political party. But, like the Eloi in the Time Machine, when Warren sounds the siren, her supporters fall in lockstep with whatever silly thing she tosses out.
The Founding Fathers experienced the persecution of tyrants. Their parents and grandparents experienced even more of the evils of absolute power living in Europe. They were subject to forced military service to fight the tyrants’ never ending wars over territory, excessive taxation and even confiscation of their land and livestock. They knew how nearly impossible it was to stop them. So they gave the new nation the electoral college as a way to elect temporary leaders. And it’s worked just fine since 1788. We only hear whining when some sore loser’s campaign failed to take into account the electoral college.
Do we want the big cities deciding who will be our president? Look at the disasters many of those cities are in: violent crime, failed schools, potential bankruptcy. What party has controlled them for the last half century or more? These people make grand promises of prosperity but often deliver poverty just like Venezuela. And doing away with the electoral college would allow those Democrat controlled big cities to dominate the presidential elections.
Don’t let anyone tell you the electoral college is unconstitutional-a tool they often employ. What the constitution clearly permits is not unconstitutional. Cohen knows that and that’s why he tries to link the electoral college with racism. He hopes to make those defending the electoral college appear to be defending racism. Don’t be fooled by that one.
Do we want leaders who trick people into supporting a sinister plan to abandon something that has helped make this nation great? Tell Elizabeth Warren and Steve Cohen we know what they are up to and we don’t want any part of it.
Ralph Miller
* * *
I'm afraid I have a different view than my good friend Ralph Miller in regards to the Electoral College. As an independent voter, I have no ax to grind regarding the last presidential election or any previous presidential election for that matter.
I've heard many people explain how the Electoral College was created to prevent large states from controlling elections. However, they are thinking of something commonly referred to as the "Great Compromise". This was the agreement to establish our bicameral legislature where representation in the House of Representatives is based on the population of each state, and representation in the Senate is two senators per state. This was a method to make sure that small states' interests where equally represented and not merely cast aside by the large states' representatives.
The Electoral College was established because the framers of the Constitution simply did not trust the American electorate of the late eighteenth century! There was good reason for them having this attitude. The American public as a whole in the late 1700's were poorly educated and usually unaware of how government worked and the important issues of the day. The electors of that day could vote for any person receiving votes when the Electoral College voted in January following a presidential election. Currently, over 20 states have passed laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate receiving the majority of the popular vote in their state. The Electoral College was a last ditch body that could override the election of, for lack of a better term, an "American Hitler".
In addition, the founding fathers further restricted the ability of the common man to vote. To qualify in most states a voter had to be white, male, at least 25, and own land. An additional restriction was created by establishing the voting day as Tuesday. Most workers in those days couldn't afford to give up wages to go vote. Today, no other western civilized country votes during the week. Voting is conducted usually on Saturday, or Saturday and Sunday because most people don't have to lose a day's work to vote.
The President of the United States is the only office elected nationally. It is also the only indirect election we have where people vote then another group actually decides who wins the election. Additionally, why should our votes here in Tennessee count less than people's votes in other states? Tennessee has 11 electoral votes, two senators and nine representatives, and a population of just over 6,000,000. Each elector represents 600,000 citizens. Wyoming has three electors, two senators and one representative, and a population of 600,000. Each elector represents only 200,000 citizens. Why should our Tennessee votes only count 1/3 as much as someone voting in Wyoming?
The basic question is do we believe in the concept of one person one vote? I always have!
Ken Barker
* * *
I think we should give every county in this country a vote, I think that would make us all equal. There are 3,141 counties including parishes, organized boroughs, census areas, independent cities and the District of Columbia.
If you are wondering about the last election Donald Trump won 3,084 counties and Clinton won 57. This country is over 3.7 million square miles and the 57 counties that voted for Clinton are 319 square miles. Does that really seem like a majority of our country voted for Clinton?
Damon Sledge
* * *
In response to Mr. Sledge, the numbers quoted on counties are entirely incorrect. According to fact-check.org, Clinton won at least 487 counties. In fact, Clinton won 27 counties in Texas and 31 in Georgia, which exceeds the quoted number of 57. The idea that the 57 quoted counties totaled 319 square miles is absurd because that would mean that these counties each averaged only 5.6 square miles. Los Angeles County alone covers 4,751 square miles with a population of over 10 million, which is more than 41 states.
I think the Electoral College serves a purpose because it does decide the presidential election when no one gets a majority of the popular vote, which happens often due to third party candidates. If elections required a majority of the popular vote we would often be in a run-off situation, which would be difficult to implement for many reasons. However, I struggle with the idea that the vote of people in populous states, like Democratic California and Republican Texas count proportionally less than a voter in a less populous state. Also, with the Electoral College, a Democratic voter here in Tennessee must feel like his or her vote doesn’t count in a presidential election because the state is overwhelmingly Republican and its winner take all on the electoral votes. The same thing must hold true for a Republican voter in a state like California, which votes heavily Democratic.
Perhaps electoral votes should be voted in same proportions that the state voted. I don’t have all of the answers, but it sure seems like a problem that in two of the last three presidential elections with no incumbent, the winner got fewer votes from Americans than the loser. How can someone get the most votes and lose? I’m not advocating for a Republican or Democratic position, just thinking about it from a common sense standpoint.
David Groves