Why the 2016 Election Proves America
Needs the Electoral College
by Jarrett Stepman
{dailysignal.com} ~ In the last week since Donald Trump defeated liar-Hillary Clinton in a stunning electoral blowout, there have been calls from many on the left to abolish America’s unique presidential election system.

It still hasn’t been settled whether Trump or liar-Clinton won the popular vote, but many Democrats are upset about the possibility that their candidate may have won more total votes, yet lost the election.

Progressives are taking aim at the Electoral College and want to replace it with a national popular vote. This would both remove the indirect mediation of the electors’ votes, and more damagingly, eliminate the power of states in choosing a president.

The 2016 presidential election is a perfect illustration of why America needs to keep this institution in place, regardless of whether one supported the winner or the loser in 2016.

The War on the Electoral College

A number of prominent people have called for abolishing the Electoral College, including President Barack liar-nObama’s former attorney general Eric Holder, and former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. And some of the media’s charges against the Electoral College have been hyperbolic.

One liberal professor called the Electoral College a “peculiar institution” and likened it to defending slavery, others simply labeled it racist, and one Slate writer denounced it as an “instrument of white supremacy—and sexism.”

Beyond the overheated rhetoric, detractors of the Electoral College have made two serious arguments.

First, that it’s simply unfair that a person can win the presidency without taking a majority of the national popular vote. Second, that an electoral emphasis on states as opposed to the people in an undifferentiated mass pushes candidates to only focus their attention on a few, closely contested “swing states.”

The ‘Fairness’ of the Electoral College

As designed in the Constitution, America’s presidential election is very much a product of the states—channeling the principle of “federalism” that the Founders cherished.

Smaller states receive a slightly higher number of votes compared to their population than more populous ones, which detractors of the Electoral College claim damages the idea of one man, one vote.

Many say this system is “unfair,” and that the total number of individual votes from all the states is a more accurate gauge for who the president should be. But, would it be fair for America’s chief executive to mostly be the product of a few urban centers in California, New York, and Texas?

The Electoral College system was designed to ensure that presidents would have to receive support from a diverse array of people around the country.

Modern candidates have to accommodate farmers in rural states, factory workers in industrial states, and software engineers in tech-dominated states. The president must consider the needs and opinions of people across the country instead of just the views of a few, highly populated urban centers.

The Electoral College ensures that the interests of “flyover country” in middle America cannot be ignored.

This was dramatically demonstrated in 2016. Trump drew the support of a huge number of states across the South and Midwest, while liar-Clinton racked up massive majorities in the most populous states like New York and California.

Without an Electoral College, candidates would have little incentive to appeal to people outside the most urbanized, coastal states. liar-Clinton was defeated because she couldn’t win over a majority of voters in the once Democrat-dominated Rust Belt that broke for liar-nObama in the previous two elections.

The state results in the 2016 election also debunk the second major argument for abolishing the Electoral College: that candidates would only spend time campaigning in a few essential swing states.

Trump succeeded in defeating liar-Clinton because he was able to pluck off a number of states—like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—that had voted solidly Democrat for over a decade. This sudden shift is why Trump secured a surprise victory.

As author and Texas lawyer Tara Ross noted in a PragerU video, a state dominated by one party shifting to another is not a new phenomenon. California was a Republican stronghold until the late 1980s, and Texas used to be controlled entirely by Democrats.

Major electoral shifts have happened throughout American history, and will continue to do so as regions and political parties change. Demolishing the Electoral College should not be based on the outcome in a particular election.

Learn Why the Fence Was Built

The American system has had a remarkable success rate in transferring power from one presidential administration to the next.

This year, protestors unhappy with the election results have gathered in a few enclaves to denounce the president-elect. Some have even called for Democrat-dominated California to secede from the Union.

Yet, with the exception of 1860 (those secession threats were a little more serious than “#Calexit”), Americans have found a way to maintain an incredible record of political stability for over two centuries—in large part thanks to the Electoral College. It would be incredibly foolish to throw away that system for the sake of one side that didn’t get what it wanted this year.

The old adage that one should learn why a fence was built before tearing it down applies to our unique presidential election process. The rash call to dismantle the Electoral College that has been the model of stability over two centuries could do enormous damage to the United States.

Though the rules of the institution may seem strange, it is a carefully designed system conceived by the framers of the Constitution, and its opponents would do well to reflect on the reasons it was created before calling for its destruction.

Views: 10

Reply to This

ONE NATION UNDER GOD

ALERT ALERT

 After Years Of Stagnation Under Obama 
Household Income Hits 50-Year High

Image result for money

Former President Barack Obama got plenty of praise for shepherding us through the recovery from the 2008 economic crisis. However, those on Main Street, USA, knew the truth — things weren’t any better than they had been when George W. Bush left office.

As The Weekly Standard reported in 2016, median household income when Obama came into office in 2009 was $56,731. In 2015, six years into his presidency, that number was $56,516 — a decrease of just over $200.

By the time he left office, it’s true that media household income had risen to $59,471 — but that was essentially the same as it had been in December, 2007, at the end of the “Great Recession” and just a few weeks before Obama took office, when it was $59,549.

So, how’s The Donald doing?

Well, as Investor’s Business Daily reported, a new study from Sentier Research found that the median household income in April was $61,483 — a 50-year high.

That’s up from $59,471 in January of 2017.

The firm tracks income using census data and adjusts for inflation — so even a slightly weaker dollar doesn’t account for the increase.

Donald Trump Jr.   @DonaldJTrumpJr  

Bad News For Dems: Household Income Hits All-Time High Under Trump … And He's Getting Credit For It!!! 

Household Income Hits All-Time High Under Trump, And He's Getting Credit For It

A new report shows that the median household income has climbed 3% since President Trump took office. It's another sign of a strong economy, and at least one poll shows the public credits Trump for...

That’s great news for the country, but maybe not the best news for Democrats.

“This is just another indication that the economy has notably strengthened under Trump. And polls show that the public’s mood has brightened considerably as a result,” Investor’s Business Daily reported.

“The latest IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index is 53.6. This index has been in positive territory (anything over 50 is optimistic) since Trump took office. The Quality of Life Index, meanwhile, hit a 14-year high in May and the Financial Stress Index is at an all-time low.”

That economic data is followed by a lot of polls that seem to show that the “blue wave” expected in the November midterms breaking and rolling back into the sea.

A new Reuters poll found that a generic Republican would beat a generic Democrat by six points. Back in March, the Democrats were up by nine points. A CBS poll found that Democrats had a two-point advantage on the generic ballot — hardly “wave” material.

The CBS poll also found that 68 percent of Americans believed Trump’s policies deserved at least some of the credit for the economic situation, with 35 percent saying he deserved a “great deal” of the credit.

Sixty-four percent of respondents rated the economy as “somewhat good” or “very good.” In a CNN poll, 57 percent of voters said that “things are going well in the U.S.” In February, that was 49 percent.

Perhaps the most important figure: Under Obama, when Gallup asked whether it was a good time to find “a quality job in the U.S.,” the highest number that administration ever achieved was 45 percent. Under Trump, that number is 67 percent — the highest number in the 17-year history of the poll.

While Trump’s personal numbers haven’t seen the same bounce, they’re still up — and that’s the important thing. Thanks to the relentless campaign of personal attacks against him, Trump’s stated approval rating has always been a lot lower than it probably is.

Don’t believe me? Just ask Hillary Clinton. For all of the personal barbs and attacks, 2016 ultimately came down to the economy. So will 2018 — and that’s not good news for the Democrats.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service