Our
nation is called the United STATES of America. It is a Union of 50
individual political entities, and as such, is unique in the world. 50
political entities that have thrown together for security and strength.
They are individuals as much as you and I, yet they share a familial
commonality.
Come election time, we do not have one election. We have 51. (Washington DC has been granted membership in the Electoral College). To win the White House, one has to win at the State level. The Left says that's not fair. The national popular vote should decide. I disagree.
It seems to me, if one wanted things to be truly balanced, a candidate might need to win a simple majority of the states to be named President. Wouldn't that be fair? Democratic?
You should know that the GOP candidate (like him or not) won THIRTY of the 51 state/DC elections. A bill with that level of support in Congress would be veto-proof.
The Democratic candidate could have won 100% of the vote in California, but domination in a handful of states will never equate with winning a broad number of our 50 member-states in our Union.
Again, if the national popular vote was the standard, politicians would ignore the needs of middle America. But that's not how we are set up. The miracle that was the founding of this nation, its grand experiment in FREEDOM and SELF-GOVERNANCE, unheard of at its time, is such that the elitist white men who assembled its structure ensured that the powerful would be less powerful, and the small would be protected from the strong.
Think hard about that. They had the foresight to set up a system that has evolved, yet still ensures less populated members of the Union have a true voice. That's what was intended, and that's the way it remains.
If an adjustment is to be made, I argue we should follow the lead of Nebraska and Maine, and award electoral votes by Congressional District, with the 2 votes representing the Senate to go to the overall winner in each state. This would give voice to the rural folks who live outside giant metropolitan areas like New York, Chicago, and much of California.
THOSE are the folks whose voice isn't being heard; farmers in big states, small-town Americans in flyover country in the Midwest, average folks living in Elitist America.
The instinct of the Left is to go the other direction, to reduce the voice of the Sates, to further Federalize every step of the way. Perhaps they'd prefer a name change? Drop the United States, in favor of yet another People's Republic?
I don't think so.
Come election time, we do not have one election. We have 51. (Washington DC has been granted membership in the Electoral College). To win the White House, one has to win at the State level. The Left says that's not fair. The national popular vote should decide. I disagree.
It seems to me, if one wanted things to be truly balanced, a candidate might need to win a simple majority of the states to be named President. Wouldn't that be fair? Democratic?
You should know that the GOP candidate (like him or not) won THIRTY of the 51 state/DC elections. A bill with that level of support in Congress would be veto-proof.
The Democratic candidate could have won 100% of the vote in California, but domination in a handful of states will never equate with winning a broad number of our 50 member-states in our Union.
Again, if the national popular vote was the standard, politicians would ignore the needs of middle America. But that's not how we are set up. The miracle that was the founding of this nation, its grand experiment in FREEDOM and SELF-GOVERNANCE, unheard of at its time, is such that the elitist white men who assembled its structure ensured that the powerful would be less powerful, and the small would be protected from the strong.
Think hard about that. They had the foresight to set up a system that has evolved, yet still ensures less populated members of the Union have a true voice. That's what was intended, and that's the way it remains.
If an adjustment is to be made, I argue we should follow the lead of Nebraska and Maine, and award electoral votes by Congressional District, with the 2 votes representing the Senate to go to the overall winner in each state. This would give voice to the rural folks who live outside giant metropolitan areas like New York, Chicago, and much of California.
THOSE are the folks whose voice isn't being heard; farmers in big states, small-town Americans in flyover country in the Midwest, average folks living in Elitist America.
The instinct of the Left is to go the other direction, to reduce the voice of the Sates, to further Federalize every step of the way. Perhaps they'd prefer a name change? Drop the United States, in favor of yet another People's Republic?
I don't think so.
