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

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p