The Electoral College Effect: Even Liberals Should Re-examine Eliminating It

This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion
Get The Real News Delivered To Your Inbox

Dems are “Just Too Smart”

One of the great debates in our country currently, specifically because of Hillary Clinton’s epic loss to President Donald Trump, is whether or not the Electoral College is fair for the people of the United States. The Electoral College was created as part of the “Great Compromise” where small states would not be crushed by larger states in relation to the ability to determine the destiny of the country. As a result, we count the number of Electoral College votes for each state by combining the number of their representatives and senators: This means no state will have less than three Electoral College votes.

Ironically, the Democrats, whom Mazie Hirono say people do not understand because “we Democrats know so much” seem to have a problem grasping the basic elements of addition. If you have 12 Representatives and 2 Senators, then you would have 14 Electoral votes. The reason Liberals want to remove the Electoral College is because it protects the nation against “vote buying” in the form of federal aid, welfare programs, and debt relief programs. Thus, there are several important reasons why the Electoral College is vital to the success of our Republic.

Understanding the Effect of Mob Rule Versus Inalienable Rights

First, the United States is a Constitutional Republic (a form of representational republic) – not a Democracy. The Democrats have had a problem with this distinction since the founding of their party in 1828, when Andrew Jackson felt it was “unfair” that John Q. Adams was elected Constitutionally, even though Jackson received more votes. This is immortalized in a meme, “Democracy means when the mob wants to take your bike, they can vote on it to make it legal.” In a pure democracy the only right which is “inalienable” is the right to vote, as opposed to a republic where rights are considered natural and the purpose of a Constitution is to preserve those rights. As a result, rights such as free speech, freedom of religion and free exercise, freedom to assemble, freedom of press, the right to bear arms, the right to council in criminal cases and the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment are all considered rights “given” by the government and thus “alienable.” The mindset of a republic establishes that a government is present to preserve the rights of the people, not to bestow and take away rights as the mob sees fit.

We have elected representatives – not elected leaders.

Second, the United States has an entitlement problem, not so much in the area of welfare, social security (which is an insurance not an entitlement) or education, but in the right of voting. Democrats have recently shifted the debate, focusing on the idea that every person has a right to vote- however, this is not the case. The liberal publication, The Atlantic, in an effort to justify every person’s right to vote, points out the key exceptions to voting rights in the United States – age, citizenship, rebellion, or other crime.

Voting Rights and IDs for US Citizens

Oddly enough, the attacks which The Atlantic article conjures up by Republicans against voting rights are simply direct enforcement of the language of the 14th Amendment:

  1. Voter ID – Voter IDs are needed to ensure everyone who is voting is a citizen of the United States and of voting age. Lack of voter IDs allows for: people to vote multiple times, vote in the place of other people, or simply lie about their identity to gain access to the polls when their voting rights have legally been removed
  2. Early Voting – Early voting in problematic because of the prevalence of fraud involved in the process and the cost. Early voting, in most states including the Florida model, allows for people to vote multiple times by “provisional ballot” or, as we move away from electronic systems, to vote at multiple locations within the same country. Further, this allows people to represent themselves as someone else so that when the rolls are compared, the vote of the actual voter is thrown out because someone else voted in their name and their vote was cast twice.
  3. Voter Registration on Election Day – This complaint is a misnomer; the actual complaint is the prohibition on volunteers registering voters on election day to circumvent the vetting process by state employees who validate the identity of the person. The six-week moratorium on voting registration before elections serves two key rolls. First, it allows staff members of the Supervisor of Elections (SOE) to validate the voter is a citizen, lives in the jurisdiction, and is of the proper age. Second, the prohibition of last-minute registration ensures a person who holds properties in multiple precincts or has a group of people who will allow for the registration in multiple precincts, from registering at the last minute as a voter in multiple precincts. Both problems are known to have happen in Florida in 2012, 2016, and 2018.
  4. Voter Registration by Private Groups – The prohibition in North Carolina on private groups having voter registration drives is a protection of the 14th (and to a greater extent the 13th) Amendment Rights. Private groups have less oversight than SOE voter registration drives. Private groups can selectively register voters based on demographics, party affiliation or location. Personally, I have been denied a registration form (at a university where I taught) because the group registering students asked before giving me a form, “Who are you supporting in the upcoming election?” The reason I went to the table was because I had two students (both first time voters) who were told they could not register because they were supporting a specific candidate. I went to validate this, and found it was true. The University Diversity office closed down the table, but the main campus overruled the decision within 30 minutes. I have also been present when people were denied registration forms because of the color of their skin (the person denied was Asian and the incident was reported to the SOE in the jurisdiction). When private groups register, the worst thing that will happen to them if they break the rules is they will lose their registration privileges.

One Representative, One Vote

In each of the above examples, the Liberal wing of the Democrat Party is supporting policies that enable voter fraud to circumvent proper representation in the United States. In this regard, some states, such as California, have fought (and won) in court arguing that illegal aliens, foreign nationals, and other non-citizen groups should be counted for enumeration of electors! This of course is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment (the argument was that since enumeration is used for resource allocation, the secondary use of the statistic should outweigh the primary use of the statistic). Garrett Epps’ arguments in The Atlantic are the exact reason why we need stronger voter laws since voting, both sides can agree, is a fundamental right.

Finally, the argument that it is “one person, one vote” not “one-acre, one vote” is an obfuscation of the electoral college. The land does not vote, the representatives of the state do, based on the electorate. This strikes at one of the most fundamental pillars of our American Republic: We have elected representatives – not elected leaders. From the lowest county office or alderman, to the President of the United States, everyone elected in the United States is a representative who is to do the will of the people. With the absence of Civics classes in our educational curriculum, there is a “dumbing down” of society. Erroneously, children are taught in “Social Studies” that elected leaders are above us. In a republic it is not “one person, one vote” or “one acre, one vote,” rather it is “one representative, one vote.” As a colleague of mine put it in a debate, “If a person in the country wants to move to the city they can,” one must realize that if a person in a city wants to move to a rural state so their vote “counts more” they have that option.

Electoral College Effect on Taxation

Without the Electoral College, it would be mob rule or democracy.

The frightening aspect of this debate goes back to the discussion about the bike. In a democracy, if the mob wants your bike, they legalize the theft of your bike through voting. In our United States, we simply replace the “bike” with our money, with our land, and with our freedoms. Each time we allow more power to the Federal Government (or State Government) that is not granted in the Constitution, we lose the voice of the Republic to the mob of Democracy. The mob ignores equality in the administration of tax revenues, when 44% of people do not pay taxes but the lion’s share of tax revenues go to finance city related project. The mob ignores equality in positions such as abortion, gun rights and immigration, wanting restrictions on rural rights (no right to life, gun-free zones, and resettlement efforts) while ignoring their own hypocrisy (eugenic euthanasia debates, armed guards and rejecting immigrant settlement in liberal dominated cities).

As a nation, we are a Republic, not a democracy. Our rights are own, by God or by nature. Eliminating the Electoral College means the government is the arbiter of rights – assigning and/or denying them as “elected leaders” please. Call your state and local representatives to tell them you want the Electoral College protected, for all of our sakes.

Author Profile

Dr. Christopher W. Smithmyer
Dr. Christopher W. Smithmyer
Dr. Christopher Smithmyer is a writer for NRN, the Vice President of International Affairs at Brav Online Conflict Management, and an Adjunct Professor of MBA Business at Doane University. He is also part of the founding team at BlackWalletLTD, one of the leaders in stable coin 2.0 ecosystem maintenance. Dr. Smithmyer’s focus is international business and finance, along with reviews of board games, weapons platforms, and survival items.