Skip to main content

Electors Settle Election

The Electoral College, which progressives wish to abolish, on Monday gave president-elect Joe Biden a majority of its vote, according to an Associated Press story.

The abolition of the Electoral College in favor of a popular selection of the president would throw national elections into the hands of states with large population centers such as New York and California, unsettling for future generations a problem the Electoral College was designed to solve.

The founders of the Republic knew that national elections decided by large population centers would necessarily disenfranchise small states such as Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Presently, electoral votes allocated to states are based on the census. The number of electoral votes are apportioned to states according to the number of senators and representatives in their U.S. Congressional delegation -- two votes for its senators in the U.S. Senate plus a number of votes equal to the number of its Congressional districts.

In the modern period, the abolition of the Electoral College in favor of popular vote elections would concentrate all political power within eastern and western seaboard states, a geographical power parenthesis largely controlled by rusting, urban centered, progressive Democrats. That is why the popular vote option is intensely popular among ideological disposed progressive Democrats and supportive sectors of populist progressivism among an increasingly left-leaning media.

Monday’s elevation of Biden to president-elect by the Electoral College extends his presidential affirmation beyond seaboard power centers of what used to be called the “vital center” of American politics. Presidential election by popular vote is popular principally among larger population centers now controlled by progressive Democrats, progressivism representing the triumph of ideology over pragmatic politics.

The move to abolish the Electoral College has and should be resisted by 1) smaller states, 2) both Democrats and Republican politicians who favor a broad political franchise, and 3) small “r” pragmatic politicians who understand that narrow ideologies spell the death of democracy. “One man, one vote”  is a fine, democratic ambition, but the ambition is effectively frustrated by adopting a system in which election to office is determined by large population centers, effectively narrowing the franchise to demographic and geographical areas of the country largely controlled by outmoded 19th and early 20th century urban political bosses. Tails in democratic structures should not wag dogs.

One supposes – wrongly – that congressional representatives from smaller states would NOT support the replacement of the Electoral College with a popular vote measure according to which electors in the states would be bound to vote in favor of presidents, like Hillary Clinton, who have received a majority of popular votes. The popular vote mandate would simply disenfranchise smaller states. The present widely distributed presidential vote would narrow to a few national population centers. Constituents represented by the Connecticut’s all Democrat US Congressional Delegation would become vote vassals dominated by New York and California.

In 2017, the Yale Daily News reported, Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal appeared at his alma mater to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [H.B. 5434]: “Blumenthal noted that Connecticut is one of only four states in the Northeast that has not passed legislation committing the state to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement between 10 states and the District of Columbia in which member states pledge to award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.”

A CTMirror opinion piece written by a member of the National Popular Vote Connecticut Working Group noted: “At a National Popular Vote CT rally in New Haven, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal spoke passionately about the need to let the will of the majority prevail when electing the president, just as it does in all other elections for higher office. Sen. Chris Murphy has been on the record supporting the compact since December.”

These are passionate, inescapably committed affirmations that, as inescapably, argue against a process which, since the institution of the Electoral College, has equitably distributed political influence to states such as Connecticut.

Ironically, Blumenthal agreed with those in New Haven who considered the Electoral College “undemocratic” and urged support for its abolition in favor of a popular vote initiative that would make Connecticut a vassal in the northeast to large population centers such as New York. Support among Connecticut politicians in favor of a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact raises the troubling question: What interests are supported when progressive representatives choose to abandon a political enfranchising Electoral College in favor of a faux-democratic system that disenfranchises their own constituents?  

Who, Blumenthal's constituents may wish to know, elected him to trade the interests of his own constituents for a mess of political pottage deployed by Democrat politicians in major urban strongholds across the country?  



Popular posts from this blog

Blumenthal the Hare

Blumenthal, Biden In the campaign season now upon us, money is, more than ever, the mother’s milk of politics. U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal, we all know, is rich in every sense of the word. He is a multi-millionaire who lives in splendor in Greenwich, Connecticut, a billionaire’s Eden. And he, as well as other Democrat U.S. Congresspersons, also redundantly rich – such as 3 rd District U.S. Representatives Rosa DeLauro, first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives more than three decades ago in 1990, and 4 th District U.S. Representative Jim Himes, now enjoying his seventh term in office – is able at the drop of a hat to assemble a formidable campaign war chest that will serve to discourage primary opponents and assure an effortless glide path to victory. In addition to personal wealth, Blumenthal is also rich in mostly flattering news reports, many of which he or his staff had a hand in creating through carefully crafted news releases not always critically examined by Conn

Connecticut, An Embarrassment Of Riches

The Lamont Family On the one hand, Connecticut Democrats have for years had a love/hate relationship with the rich. Not a few Democrat Jeremiahs have let loose on the rich over the years, partly in order to claim solidarity with the more numerous middle class. In our progressive post-Marxian leftist universe, class is still king. The rich, by simply being rich, are still regarded in leftist quarters as oppressors of the proletariat. Connecticut’s “Gold Coast,” a parcel of well-endowed rich people stretching snake-like along the state’s southern coastline, fairly glows with wealth. Greenwich is wealth central, and a few Democrat politicians live in the glorious gilded bubble, far from the madding crown. U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal and Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, both of whom will be heading the Democrat ticket in the midterm elections, live in Greenwich. Other Democrat U.S. Congressional millionaires are U.S. Representatives Jim Himes, who also lives in Greenwich, and Democr

Blumenthal, Biden, And Postmodern Utopians

Blumenthal People are noticing the drop in U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s approval rating. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, Blumenthal’s approval has dipped into a danger-red area. “The job approval of U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who is seeking a third term this fall, CTMirror reports, “was his worst in Quinnipiac polling since the Democrat took office in 2011. He was barely above water: 45% approve while 43% disapprove.” Coincidentally, the approval rating of President Joe Biden , which ranges from 36% to 43%, is underwater. The New York Post , every postmodern progressive’s bete noir , suggests that Biden’s reactionary economic policies may lie at the root of his disfavor, but these roots may go deeper than anyone supposes. “President Biden,” a Post commentator writes, has dismissed inflation worries, “saying that Milton Friedman — the famed inflation-fighting economist — no longer runs the show. Well, the late economist certainly didn’t run Biden’s show, but his obs