Keep the Electoral College

I posted this on my personal Facebook page due to the responses I got from the following picture that I shared:

The replies attacked the Republic thinking in the terrible error of our day that the US is a democracy and it is not. And that the Electoral Collage was created because of lack of technology to count the popular vote. Here is what I wrote and you can always check my personal Facebook page for the replies and other details.


The replies to this post just go to show how much the Left has taken over the education system in the country. The Electoral College had nothing to do with technology at the time or in the future from now. It all has to do with States Rights because the United States is a REPUBLIC and not a Democracy.

Even in the 18th Century there were urban centers which were far more populated that the rural areas of what would become the United States. The Electoral College was created, in part, to prevent urban centers from dictating to the rural areas of the country.

To say that the government couldn’t do a popular vote count back in the 18th century is totally false. It is a lie and one you need to stop believing. Voting is always counted at the precinct level. In my home county of Polk county Iowa we have at least 171 precincts with the current election maps. And there are 99 counties in the State of Iowa. That is a lot of precincts. The 18th century would only be counted slower than the 20th and 21st centuries. Everything else is exactly the same as it was then.

The popular votes are counted at the precincts who then give those numbers to the county who in turn give those numbers to the state talleys. And local to Federal level elections are decided by the vote count. Even after the 17th amendment removed the Senate from the various State legislatures appointment to a popular vote. I for one would like to see that amendment repealed and have that given back to the States.

Our founding fathers were perfectly capable of counting the popular vote for the presidency just as it was counted for the House and other statewide and local elections. They could probably count it better than we can today, especially if we were forced not to use computers.

For the Electoral College, each state gets several votes equal to the total number of Senators (representing the State) and Congressmen (representing the people). Remember, we have a REPUBLIC and this is how they work so it is a level playing field for everyone.

I can’t say how the Electoral College in primary only states are chosen. I don’t live in one and have never been part of that process. I live in a caucus state and generally participate in every 2 year caucus cycle. In the 2016 election I was nominated and ran to be a delegate at the Republican national convention. I also was nominated and ran to be a member of the Electoral College. I didn’t win either of those elections but I put my name out there for it. I have usually been a delegate to the county, district, and state conventions a number of times.

Most states have who ever wins the popular vote, that party gets to choose who is on the Electoral College to represent the state. Both parties (and even 3rd parties) choose their electors ahead of time at their conventions. Iowa has 6 Electoral College votes. 2 for our Senators, and 4 for the 4 Congressional districts. And since current Iowa law is that winner takes all. Donald Trump won the popular vote in Iowa so the Republican party had their Electoral College electors vote.

Here is the map of the 2016 election results, it is a clear Republican victory far more red and than blue.

Within the Electoral College there are 538 possible votes, only 270 are needed to win. Which is a very slim majority. In 2016 Trump got 306 and Clinton got 232. Clearly the winner was rightfully Donald Trump. But if we look go with the silly notion of dividing the electoral votes by the popular vote then no one would have been elected and there would have been an unprecedented 2nd election done.
As Clinton would have had 268 votes, Trump would have had 257 votes, Johnston would have gotten 12 votes, and McMullin 1 vote.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

By the time you read this blog, electors will be meeting in their respective states to vote for the President of the United States. The good news is the electoral vote means the end of the 2016 campaign. The bad news is electors will be choosing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

To that end, Clinton supporters are attempting to appeal to Trump electors’ patriotism by persuading them Trump is too dangerous to be President. (Ambassador Chris Stevens was unavailable to speak on Hillary’s dangerousness because, well, he’s dead and all.) To do this, the Left is invoking a portion of The Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton that suggests it is their duty to vote against Trump.

So, do they have a point, other than the ones on their heads? Let’s find out.

Hamilton electors

What the Left believes it means – electors who must be persuaded not to vote for Donald Trump, thus preventing him from becoming President

What it really means – a last ditch effort to give an unqualified candidate the Presidency

Before we get into the whys, we need to understand the thinking behind the Hamilton electors. According to them, they derive inspiration from Federalist 68, which they say disqualifies Trump from becoming President. After reading it in greater detail, the points the Hamilton electors raise are at least somewhat persuasive.

Here are their qualms about Trump, from their website.

What were 3 tests that the Founding Fathers used to judge the
“fitness” of a President?

Election of a Qualified Person: As Hamilton stated [in Federalist Papers 68], the purpose was to ensure that “…the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

Preventing Election of a Demagogue or Charlatan: The Founders did not want a person who would play on public fears and temporary passion to hold the office. Hamilton again: “Talent for low intrigue…may alone suffice to elect a man… but it will require other talents and merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union.”

Preventing Election of a President under Foreign Influence: The Founders feared attempts by other countries to orchestrate the election of a person under their influence. The Founders believed, as Hamilton put it, that the decentralized, layered electoral college guarded against foreign nations “…raising a creature of their own to the chief magistry” of the United States.

Now, here’s the funny part. Every knock they make against Trump can also apply to…Hillary Clinton. Let’s review the facts, shall we?

Although Hillary Clinton spent 8 years living in the White House, that doesn’t make her qualified to be President. I’ve lived in my house for 3 and half years, but that doesn’t make me qualified to run a mortgage company. Well, maybe Wells Fargo, but beyond that, no. As First Lady, Hillary did…nothing. She tried to create a healthcare system, but failed. Her failures continued into her roles as Senator and Secretary of State. Holding an office doesn’t equate into accomplishments in said office. You actually have to, you know, accomplish something.

Then, there’s the “talent for low intrigue”, which is pretty much the Clinton M.O. since, oh, ever. However, Hillary’s talent isn’t as well developed as she thinks it is. Email scandal, anyone? Clinton Foundation? The rigging of the Democrat nomination? It’s almost like Hillary was an unpopular, dishonest, and utterly corrupt politician!

And while we’re here, I seem to remember a certain candidate who called a large chunk of the electorate “deplorables.” Damn that Donald Tru…uh, that was Hillary. Or maybe I was thinking of the time Trump said his greatest enemies were Democra…ah, that was Hillary, too. The only way Hillary is in the clear is playing on the temporary passion of the people. I’ve seen more passion in coma wards than at Hillary rallies.

Preventing foreign influence is a valid concern, but one has to look at the Clinton Foundation books to see…Hillary has taken cash from foreign countries as a means to peddle influence. Even with Trump’s connections to Russia (some of which are so poorly sourced, it makes Vox look like Solomon), one cannot ignore the other side of the political ledger.

But to hear the Hamilton electors describe it, only Trump is the problem. I’m sure it’s just an oversight because we all know the Hamilton electors are completely bipartisan. They say so!

Here’s the problem with their idea. The Constitution states if no Presidential candidate gets a majority of the vote, the House of Representatives votes for President, and the Senate votes for Vice-President. Hmmm…now, which party controls both houses of Congress? Why, it’s…the Republican Party! And it’s not like they can choose whomever they want, either. They have to choose among the three candidates who got the most votes.

Can you say “exercise in futility” boys and girls? I knew you could.

This leads to the question of why the Hamilton electors would do something that will ultimately fail. Aside from being dumber than a bag of hammers, it’s to undercut Trump, a candidate they never thought would be President. They literally cannot bring themselves to admit Hillary was a flawed candidate, so instead of sucking it up, they’re attempting to use Alexander Hamilton to justify their actions.

For as serious as they claim to be about preserving the Constitution, they’re ignoring the process to play favorites.

And here’s the best part. These folks are predicting gloom and doom before Trump has even done anything as President. And some of these folks are already pushing for Trump to be impeached right now…before he’s even won the Presidency under the Constitution. Granted, no one ever said the Hamilton electors were as smart as they claim, but the point remains. These folks aren’t doing anything heroic, justifiable, or patriotic.

They’re just being self-righteous asshats.

The Vote

The Electoral College meets on Monday, December 19th to officially cast the vote for President of the United States. Love or hate the Electoral College, they are the true deciding vote in our great Republic. They are the safeguard against the mob rule of democracy.

This year’s election has generated a lot of emotions. On the Left we have an outgoing President who’s legacy will be wiped from memory and regulated to a footnote in history. And the Left is up in arms about it. They wanted a continuation of the failed liberal socialist progressive agenda. But the people have spoken, and the presumptive President-Elect will bring that chapter in American History to a close.

But there are elements on the Right that share the fanaticism of the Left in not wanting victory for the President-Elect. False claims aside, the real motivation for them is loss of power and prestige as the Washington Swamp gets drained. The President-Elect’s transition is not politics as usual. And they are scared to death that they will loose their positions of power. Even with a Democratic win, they on the Right would still have their power and prestige.

The rules for the Electoral College, like the results of the general election itself is based in the rightful hands of the several States. Some States require that the Electors cast their ballot for the nominee that won the State’s general election. While others do not.

If these Electors do not cast their votes for the presumptive President-Elect there could be a backlash against them. Even on State has already stated that they would be replaced if they do not cast their votes properly. The backlash could actually even lead to a second Civil War in this country. And if the Electors do cast their votes according the to law and tradition. Then the Left will make another attempt to rid the Republic of the Electoral College. But that would take a Constitutional Amendment and they lack the political power to begin that process under the 2016 election cycle.

I believe that the Electoral College should do it’s job. To cast the vote for the Presumptive President-Elect as the winner of the popular vote in the majority of the several States. Thus confirming Donald J. Trump as the President-Elect of the United States.

Enough of the Crazy

No matter what petition one signs. No matter how many protests are staged. No matter how many acts of violence are taken against those who voted for President-Elect Donald Trump. It’s not going to change the outcome of the election.

President-Elect Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States. He was duly, fairly, and lawfully elected according to the election laws of the several states and the US Constitution.

Accept it and get over it. I lived through two elections that I didn’t like the results of because people were afraid of not being politically correct. You can and will survive the Trump Administration.

You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game (unless you are a toddler making them up as you go along.) Petition, cry, and cowering in a fetal ball in the corner isn’t going to change a thing.

There is only one way to get rid of the Electoral College that you didn’t complain about in 2004, 2008, or in 2012 for some reason. That is to have a Constitutional Amendment. You might be able to accomplish that process by the 2024 election if you work hard enough on it. But it would not be any sooner than that. And I will fight it every step of the way. The Electoral College is a safe-guard to our Republic. I want it to stay no matter who wins the election because of it.

It would be far easier to reform the rules at the state level. Ending the winner-take-all rules that are currently in place. But again this isn’t going to impact the 2016 election one iota. But it might be able to impact the 2020 election with hard word and determination.

So stop whining. Accept the things you cannot change. Have courage to change the things you can. And have the wisdom to know the difference.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

After Donald Trump won the Presidency, the Left was stunned. Then, they were sad. Then, they were mad. Then, they were violent and destructive. And that was just on November 9th!

Out of the distress came a renewed call to get rid of the Electoral College because Trump didn’t win the popular vote. If you remember, there were similar calls after the 2000 election where George W. Bush was elected in spite of Al Gore winning the popular vote.

Yet, these folks were strangely silent in 2008 and 2012. Hmmmm…

On the plus side, it gives us a chance to review the Electoral College and why the Left dislikes it.

Electoral College

What the Left thinks it means – an antiquated voting system created by racists that needs to be replaced by the popular vote

What it really means – a voting system that works better than people think

If you look over the history of the Electoral College, you’ll find two things. One, they don’t have much of a football program. And two, more often than not, the popular vote and Electoral College vote coincide. Counting the 2016 election, there have been only 5 times when the popular vote and Electoral College vote differed.

Now, consider the fact we’ve been electing Presidents since 1789. That’s 58 elections in 227 years, kids. Doing the math, the percentage of Presidential elections where the popular vote and Electoral College vote results don’t match is 8.6%. Oddly enough, that seemed to be the margin of error of a lot of media polls done this year.

Even if you run the numbers by the number of Presidents we’ve had, it’s 1 out of 9 elections, or 11.1%. Come to think of it, that might have been the margin of error for media polls this year. Either way, it’s pretty rare that it happens.

So, why do we have so many people wanting to get rid of the Electoral College? A lot of it comes down to ignorance of the process. What the anti-Electoral College side wants is for a direct election of officials, but what they don’t understand is the vote is a direct election, but not in the way they think.

When you vote for President, you’re not actually voting for the candidate. What you’re doing is voting for a slate of electors, which have been chosen by the political parties in your state. Whoever gets the most votes in the state gets that state’s slate of electors.

In other words, it’s what the pro-popular vote folks want, just in a slightly different form than they understand.

The other big reason behind the anti-Electoral College sentiment is purely political. If we switch the way we elect Presidents to a popular vote, that means larger cities and states can dictate who gets elected. And who tends to run larger cities?

Yeah. Leftists.

Switching to the popular vote would be a boon for Leftists, who tend to consolidate their bases of power in cities. Oddly enough, these are also the areas where there is voter fraud. Yeah, yeah, I know the Left says voter fraud doesn’t happen, but these are the same people who tell us Hillary Clinton had the experience to be President even though her only experience as President was as a resident in the White House as her husband was playing “Hide the Cigar” with interns.

So, why should we keep the Electoral College? The system isn’t broken, no matter how many Leftists cry about it. If you accept the results when the Electoral College vote goes the way you want, you have to accept them when it doesn’t. This isn’t like a Choose Your Own Adventure book where you can cheat by looking at the results of a choice and then decide which one “counts.”

Also, getting rid of the Electoral College means having to replace it with something, and the popular vote just isn’t the best option since it can be gamed easily by both sides of the political spectrum. All it takes is people just dishonest enough to do it. But I’m sure there aren’t any dishonest political figures out there, right?

There is one more reason we should keep the Electoral College, and I admit it’s more of a personal one.

It drives the Left crazy.

The Electoral College

Every four years we hear the same thing. People don’t like the Electoral College. They want the popular vote to stand. And this misguided thought comes from all sides. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike. But we must never abandon the Electoral College.

If we had gone that route the last two times it has happened. Then Al Gore would have been President during the 9/11 crisis when the US was attacked by Islamic Terrorists on our own soil. And Hillary Clinton would be the current President-Elect. That is of course if nothing else changed in the past 16 years which is highly unlikely.

The Electoral College is a staple of our Great Republic. It needs to remain in place. Without it the largest population centers on the East and West coasts would decide the presidential elections. And those of us in more rural or smaller communities would be “fly over” for the candidates.

They would never come to Iowa and never have to answer a farmer at the State Fair. They would not have to come to get our votes because they wouldn’t matter without the Electoral College.

Now the Electoral College does have its flaws. When the Electoral College meets in December to cast the official vote for President of the United States. They are not bound to cast that vote for the candidate or nominee that won their state’s popular vote. They can vote for anyone or abstain from voting if they choose.

Most states also have a winner-take-all when it comes to the Electoral College. Which ever nominee wins the popular vote in the state, gets all of that state’s Electoral College votes as well. It would be more representative to split the Electoral Votes by the same percentage as the popular vote.

But these two flaws are minor when it comes to the importance of keeping this institution in place. It is a hallmark of the Republic.

The Case is Being Made

It’s already being discussed in some circles of our political spectrum to create a viable 3rd party nominee for President. I remarked about this in a previous post on how it could possibly happen in this election cycle. And now it’s looking more likely every day.

As far as the Democrats go, they already have a 3rd party candidate running, Bernie Sanders. And if he doesn’t get the nomination he may again split off as an independent alternative to Hillary Clinton. He has a sizable following that she cannot win over to her banner.

And we have the GOP. Unfortunately the party of vote splitting. In the past it’s always been the Republicans who end up splitting their voter base with a 3rd party nominee. Which enables the Democrats to win the election because they unify and rally behind their nominee.

Those in favor of a 3rd party split nominee for the Republicans in this election cycle want something different. Not just a protest vote against the establishment and the 2 major parties. Such candidates are not viable and your vote ends up being wasted.

No this time the independent 3rd party nominee must be viable. They must be able to win a few states in the general election. Not just getting a few votes. No 3rd party candidate has ever done that before in a presidential election year.

This time the 3rd party nominee must prevent the major parties or other independents running for President from obtaining the needed 270 electoral votes. That is the goal of those looking into a possible 3rd party independent nominee.

To have someone who can really make a difference in the outcome of the election. To force the Electoral College to turn the election over to the US House of Representatives and have the President elected there instead.

President Cruz? Not likely

If Donald Trump doesn’t get the needed 1237 delegates in the 1st round of voting where the delegates are bound by State Laws. Then it may be all over for The Donald and the Republican Party’s hope at winning the White House in November.

Ted Cruz will not be able to unite the Republican Party behind him. His base is too focused for widespread appeal in a general election. He has only won two states at more than 50% of the Republican vote. Wyoming, which is sparsely populated and no help in a general election. And surprisingly Utah, which is home to the Mormon Church. Also no real help in a general election. Cruz didn’t even get 50% of the vote in his home state of Texas and won Iowa with only 27.6% of the vote.

By contrast Hillary Clinton has won 16 states by 50% or more and Bernie Sanders has won 15 states by 50% or more of the vote. And in many of these cases both have won with well over 70-80% of the Democratic vote. Something to be feared in the general election.

So with the delegates for Cruz going on to the National Convention. It gives him better odds of getting the nomination in the 2nd round of voting. But he is still a non-Establishment candidate and it might not be enough after all. And winning the nomination is not the same as winning the general election.

Against Clinton is a battle against the “disenfranchised” liberal underdogs. Hillary Clinton is their champion. The minorities, the woman vote, the LBGT vote. The pro-choice, the anti-gun, the marriage equality vote, and a host of others. Take the warning from Mike Huckabee to heart. The Clinton political machine is a monster and is hard to beat.

But Ted Cruz does play politics by the same rules and with the same goals in mind as the Clintons. It will be a brutal, bloody, and dirty fight between these two power hungry forces.

Against Sanders is a different strategy. Bernie Sanders brings the 99% under his banner. A large majority of millennial first-time voters who are young and believe they can have everything for free as Berine promises. To them Cruz and his Wall Street wife are evil incarnate.

It becomes a numbers thing with that fight. Do the millennials have enough votes to sweep the states all the way to the White House? They just might. And the strategies Cruz has used since his campaign began against his fellow Republicans and what would be used against a Clinton opponent will not work against The Bern. And Cruz will end up playing with fire and feeling that Bern with the rest of us.

The only hope for a President Cruz is a split in the Democrat vote and a split in the Republican vote that ends up with no one winning the needed electoral votes. And the matter being decided by the US House of Representatives.