Thursday, April 24, 2008

Flexing Their Pectoral College Muscles

One of the most annoyingly ignorant comments in all of politics is the claim that the electoral college ought to be dispensed with in favor of the popular vote. Aside from utterly reducing the 10th amendment to meaningless rabble, it assumes that we are a pure democracy rather than a republic of independent states. Having grown up in Wyoming, the least populous state, and now in California, the most populous state, I have a particularly strong and necessarily informed view of the electoral college as an integral part of true representative government.

Now, let's recent memory, who was it that was complaining about the 'outdated' electoral college? Oh Yeah! The Democrats. Now they're starting at it AGAIN. Says Obama: "We think that, in the end, if we end up having won twice as many states and having the most votes, then we should be the nominee."

Well, no kidding. Following that syllogismotic wizardry, I think that, because I weigh less (in the end) than my brother and I have a need to move freely, then the law of gravity ought not apply and I should be able to whimsically float about like a pretty butterfly.

True, party nomination is not exactly electoral college material, but you see the trend beginning this election already, mainly because the Democratic party wants the demos to believe they live in a democracy. But, as a matter of fact, we don't. (I'd like to see someone remind Obama of this quote in November when he loses the majority of the states, and yet still gets elected.)

Look, people, we Americans live in a Republic. Sure, it has democratic tendencies, for it's representative. BUT IT'S NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!

When was the last time you sang 'The Battle Hymn of the Democracy'? Or pledged allegiance to the United States and to 'the democracy for which it stands'? Oh. whoops. I forgot that children aren't expected (allowed) to learn those anymore. To many references to God. *%#@ing anti-patriotic, impious liberals. They ruin everything.

Someone please explain this very simple concept to the Democrats. Oh, never mind, they'll bitch no matter what side of the coin is up. I know that if the popular vote is counted, States like Wyoming (and ironically Washington D.C) would have not one iota of representation in the election of the executive branch, and therefore little say in the appointment of judges, not to mention that their representative legislators would receive no respect (or important appointments to committees) in the Congress, for only the states holding concentrated population would be of importance.


Ignoramus said...

Where are you from in Wyoming?

The Vitruvian Duck said...

Born in Dubois, lived a little in Lander and a lot in Rawlins.

Ignoramus said...

Of course, I am persuaded by your appeal to the Battle Hymn of the Republic and so on, but one of the battles we face now is to argue that the founders' vision for our country is relevant. You can demonstrate until you are blue in the face that the founders intended the Constitution to say X or Y, and the answer you get is something about a "living document".

I can't pretend to understand the debate or what underlies it. I get the impression my father knows something about it.

Meanwhile, your last argument about representation for each state is a promising way to start. That takes us back to the fact--still a fact, thank God--that the states retain some identity and pride and have not been glommed together into a federal megastate. Ultimately, where your thesis takes us in the direction of the relation between state and federal government.

Oops--started by admitting ignorance and then went on to make claims. Well, judge the claims in light of my admission!