Victor Davis Hanson
8. Destroying the Electoral College. Next, we come to an array of leftwing proposals designed to destroy the Constitution as we have known it, all for the short-term advantage of the Left. Vice presidential candidate, the buffoonish and so often untruthful Tim Walz just boasted, “The Electoral College needs to go.”
And indeed, that is the first and prime target of our Jacobins. The Electoral College is an institution that they once revered when it was dubbed the indomitable “Blue Wall.”
Remember, prior to 2016, in the “golden” Obama years when the Electoral College was as indomitable as the Theodosian Walls of Constantinople—consisting of the unbreakable triad of California, Illinois, and New York (home to America’s three largest megalopolises, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York), thus guaranteeing the Left an automatic 104 electoral votes before the balloting had even begun. Then there was the supposedly reliable “rust belt/lunch belt” sureties (Obama’s “clinger” states) of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania with another 46 more “automatic” electoral votes.
But in 2016, Donald Trump blew up the Midwest triad, lost the popular vote, but was still elected president by a fairly easy Electoral College margin.
So suddenly, the College was “anti-democratic,” “racist,” and antiquated”—fill in the usual leftwing blanks of disparagement. None had read the Federalist Papers or the vast literature surrounding the writing and drafting of the Constitution and thus were ignorant of the Founders’ reasoning for the creation of the College.
Under federalism, we are the United States, not just an amorphous nation, but rather 50 united entities, semi-sovereign, distinct regional jurisdictions with unique characteristics and powers; and the College was also designed to disperse the voting so that fraud more likely from a single national popular vote would not be completely determinative.
And in Jeffersonian terms, the College was supposed to give rural geographical balance to urban densities, i.e., the map of the U.S. would show rural, small-town, and agrarian areas (now “red” states) to cover geographically the vast majority of the American nation, while the urban areas would account for half or more of the population but be confined in area to a few states and clusters.
The College thus would prevent candidates from simply visiting 10 or so mostly coastal major cities in relatively close proximity and ignoring the vast interior expanses of the nation.
In typical leftist fashion, the Democrats sought an unconstitutional means of circumventing the lengthy constitutional amendment process of requiring any change to win 2/3s of the combined Congress and 3/4s of the state legislatures—a process designed exactly to prevent partisan zealots from rigging and tearing apart the Constitution to fit their short-term ambitions.
No matter. The Left dreamed up “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC),” a leftwing funded effort to get state legislatures and governors to pass legislation nullifying the Constitution, by pledging not to honor their states’ tallies in electing electors by pledging them instead to the winner of the national vote. The compact now requires just a few more states with a total of 61 more electoral votes to achieve the magical winning 270-vote majority of the College. But to ensure that unconstitutional change, the Left also needs to change the makeup of the Supreme Court. And so read on….
Discussion (11)
Join the conversation. Logged in subscribers avoid the Captcha verification and get priority commenting approvals. No vulgarity, links, or code allowed.
Love this example Miles!
Yes, may the republic be blessed to continue!
1 federal voting system based only on national popular vote is much easier to manipulate than 50. Those who support such a national system need to think hard about the fact that once in place, anyone or any group will be much more easily dismissed. The elite totalitarians will rapidly rid themselves (by any means necessary) of most they used to achieve their power goals. Most who support such change will never know anything but the heel of the elites to whom they have chosen to grant power. Mr. Trump is one example! Flooding congressional districts with non-native populations is another. Controlling what goes on in or who may actually reside in 3 or 4 population centers is not such a difficult task in this modern world. Dr. Hanson has already described the feudal system of the ancient world and medieval Europe quite well in previous essays. Obviously, control of the military is key. Totalitarians historically have managed that as well. History may not repeat; however, the nature of mankind is constant regardless of how much lipstick is put on the pig. The American experiment has thus far, with the blessings of the Almighty, managed to curb much of the totalitarian tendencies in our nature. May the republic be blessed to continue.
Gibbs - I understand your frustration but I think you already know the answer to the question you pose. The “progressive “ left has a deep seated contempt for conservatives who have a deep respect for our founding Fathers wisdom as they carefully drafted the Constitution. Conservatives trust the design and language of the Constitution even when the Electoral College sanctioned a democrat. The “progressive” Marxists will never change. To do so would be admitting that their self ordained superiority is a sham.
As usual, a great easy to understand explanation by VDH. I have had the opportunity to express my opinion to younger lads about the Electoral College when they have asked me how I can support such an *anti-democratic* institution. A very basic comparative point I've made is this: "Look, you're a baseball fan right? Well suppose this, your team gets to the World Series. The series goes 7 games. Your team has won three games by a score of 1-0. The opponent has won three games by a score of 6-0. Then in game 7 your team wins 1-0 again winning 4 of the 7 game in the series therefore is the winner right? Well according to your "anti-democratic" theory no. The team that only won three games wins the series because they scored a cumulative 18 points while your team scored only 4 cumulative points." That's not a great studious explanation as Dr. Hanson's here but when in a pinch and a hurry, I've found it to work. Maybe not completely but enough to get them to thinking. I've yet to ever get a rebuttal from any of these youngsters.
As usual, a great easy to understand explanation by VDH. I have had the opportunity to express my opinion to younger lads about the Electoral College when they have asked me how I can support such an *anti-democratic* institution. A very basic comparative point I've made is this: "Look, you're a baseball fan right? Well suppose this, your team gets to the World Series. The series goes 7 games. Your team has won three games by a score of 1-0. The opponent has won three games by a score of 6-0. Then in game 7 your team wins 1-0 again winning 4 of the 7 game in the series therefore is the winner right? Well according to your "anti-democratic" theory no. The team that only won three games wins the series because they scored a cumulative 18 points while your team scored only 4 cumulative points." That's not a great studious explanation as Dr. Hanson's here but when in a pinch and a hurry, I've found it to work. Maybe not completely but enough to get them to thinking. I've yet to ever get a rebuttal from any of these youngsters.
You hit the nail on the head Alex. Thank you. Would that something like that would happen.
The Electoral College and the US Senate are often criticized by those who say that a majority of "the people's voices" are not heard. It is said that we should adopt a system where a majority of votes nationwide should be the rule of law. Why not? Nations as populous as the United States of America are, or tend to become, autocratic and totalitarian. The "majority" forces its will on the "minority." What makes the United States different is that its subdivisions - its states - have significant rights separate and apart from the central (here the federal) government. That makes each state a bit different and it allows the people to move from place to place to find the government most to their liking. It permits each state to try various systems and to implement various laws and to adjust those systems and laws as needed. Thus, a very populous country can exist without falling into autocracy and totalitarianism. A central government can be made less powerful ("smaller"), and people can find the system that suits them best. (However, if your joy comes from forcing your will on others, then autocracy is for you - unless, of course, you have "different thoughts." These "different thoughts" can be "conspiracy theories" or "misinformation," or perhaps they might just turn out to be correct after all. Stamp out "different thoughts" and you might actually stamp out progress, and what is so "progressive" about that?) Certain things are best served by a bigger central govern
Will the machinations ever end?
have you done an article on promises by Harris and Trump--a comparison??? I might have missed it???
January 21, 2025 From: President of the United States of America Effective immediately, I hereby appoint the esteemed and honorable Dr. Victor Davis Hanson as Secretary of the Office of Domestic and Foreign Affairs. All decisions, plans and strategies are to go directly through his office. Thank you and may God bless the United States of America. Donald J. Trump