Why is it that the popular vote is considered the end-all-be-all of who should govern a nation. So someone runs up two or three large states that lean left 65/35 and can ignore the rest of the nation and deserves to govern why? They already get a huge electoral vote share for winning those states.
But it seems that anytime these “proposals” get floated, they come from the coast and seem determined to prove that California and New York should dictate to what they call “Flyover country” who governs the 30 states that typically disagree with them.
Why someone should win the Presidency but winning 4 states big and losing 2/3rds of them has yet to be adequately explained. Nor has it been explained why the Founders of the country were no longer correct in their assertion that pure democracy promotes demagoguery. In fact, this election cycle demonstrates quite well, to my mind, what happens when the engines of what is supposed to be free elections are subverted in the “interests” of the mob.
1) Voter Registration fraud rampant by a group fronting for one candidate.
2) The Election commission unusable because it is rigged, contrary to law, to bias to one party. Again, rigged to the same candidate.
3) The media being in the tank completely for that same candidate. Refusing to run stories that are critical of him. Refusing to take seriously the critical remarks made of him by people in their own party. Denouncing those who disagree with the one as racist on his behalf, and giving him a free pass as he plays the race card from the bottom of the deck again and again…that in itself is patent demagoguery.
None of these articles or opinions ever deal with the core issue. Which is not the issue of “multiple candidates being sifted through” as this article claims. Indeed, campaigning for the office of the Presidency was considered a practice beneath the office until the Civil War. The core issue was that mass population centers tend towards demagoguery and radical ideology. And they also tend towards dictating that on their neighbors. The Founders did not want that ideology or mass hysteria or cult of personality infecting the whole electorate, so the electoral college was created. In an election where one candidate is clearly running a campaign based on the cult of personality, it’s very hard to believe the Founders were not right and the College is still not necessary.
Their argument was based not on the vagueries of the political systems of their day. But rather an understanding of human nature. That has not changed. Contrary to popular belief, the former days were not better than today (Solomon tells us such is not wisdom to say), but they were also not worse when it regards to human nature. We’re still manipulative, grasping, and cynical when operating in a collective. And thus the system we have is still the best one for mitigating those negative impulses.