Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 
Pin It

The Electoral College was put into place, not in order to “protect our democracy” but to prevent our nation from ever actually becoming a democracy, or even being run as a democracy. Democracy is inherently evil. There is an old adage that still rings true; “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb ‘voting’ on what to have for dinner.” Article Four Section Four of the United States Constitution states very clearly and very plainly that the independent but united States of America are guaranteed a republican form of governance.

This should be prefaced by the fact that one should not confuse this with the republican party of today, but rather that the nation as a whole, as a unity of independent states, in an effort to promote their common good … as the meaning for “welfare” today is decidedly different than what it was at the time … established a Constitutional Representative Republic … as Ben Franklin also noted, somewhat wryly perhaps … “If you can keep it!”

One need look no further than Federalist Paper no. 10 to understand why this nation was not founded as a democracy … as was so subtly noted in such a nuanced fashion above, a democracy is inherently evil and amounts to little more than mob rule, whereas a Representative Constitutional Republic is designed to protect both society and the individual, and to prevent them from being disenfranchised, individually and as a whole.

It was noted by the Federalist Authors that a democracy is as short and violent in its life as it is in its death. In short, a democracy does not work. In fairness, it was not until after the War Between the States that the term “democracy” became a common expression in place of our Representative Constitutional Republic. It was not until sometime around nineteen hundred and ten that this term even began showing up in textbooks for students.

The only places that democracy has ever been truly demonstrated in any meaningful way was in ancient Greece and it did not work out so well for that society. Anyhow, there is enough material readily available regarding the dangers of democracy to merit a great many articles all their own; the purpose of this paper is to look at the need to implement the Electoral College system at the state level.

Mind you, this also does not take into account the presence of Delegates and Super-Delegates in national political partying platforms either … which again, is a separate topic though still one that needs to be discussed.

The entire purpose behind the introduction of the Electoral College System is to inhibit the ability of even a slight majority of the people from unlawfully limiting or restricting or even banning the rights of the minority. This ability has been amply demonstrated in numerous locations around the nation within the independent but united States.

While it may be easy to casually dismiss this as “just the way things are” or as a good thing as long as “our guys” are the ones doing it, it should be noted that the pendulum always swings both ways … as is amply evidenced by the number of political scandals currently in progress from both sides of the political partying aisles. Just remember, it ain’t gonna be so pretty when “the other guys” start doing it too.

In days of old, before the states were as densely populated as they are today, there was rightful concern that a state such as New York would be able to effectively counter all of the votes of numerous smaller states, and collusion among the then current cackle of corrupt and complicit congress critters would easily allow for the punishment of any states that did not follow the political rhetoric of the controlling party of the day.

This was also the reason that the Senate was established, not as an extension of the congress, but as representatives of the independent but united States … at least until the passage of the seventeenth amendment which allowed for the commencement en masse of the centralized federal system to commence unlawfully usurping the power of the States and regulating virtually every aspect of the life and regulations of the states in addition to ruling and lauding over the plebes known as the people.

Again, I digress as that also needs to be discussed in separate articles. Regardless, the Electoral College was originally put in place in order to prevent the operation of our nation as a democracy and to ensure that no state would enjoy any benefit, control or power over another state save through the Equality Clause(s) which ensure that the Law(s) of the States shall be made and respected from each to the other.

On the one hand, there are a great many people who believe that the Popular Vote should reign supreme. After all, this does really represent the real will of the people does it not? What could possibly be wrong with that?

 

WARNING: GROSS EXAGGERATION AND OVER-SIMPLIFICATION APPEARS IN THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE. While this is a gross exaggeration, it would be quite possible under the terms of the popular vote in regards to policy, regulation and law. Let us assume for the sake of this example, that all of our government agents and agencies are as kind and benevolent as we believe them to be, and that only the evil corporations are the bad guys.

END HOMELESSNESS!

Let’s end homelessness! Let’s vote to ensure that everyone owns a home. Sounds great right? Okay. Put it to the popular vote and see what happens. Sure enough, everyone likes the idea of making sure everyone has a home so the law is voted on and passed by an overwhelming majority of the popular vote.

But wait.

Unlike our kind and benevolent government masters, those awful corporations are evil … and one of them has read the law in detail. What about those people that cannot afford a home? No provision was made for them. What about landowners who have land but have not built homes on them? What about people living in campers, trailers or other temporary or substandard housing? What about those people who just do not want to own a home?

They are all now criminals in the eyes, the word and the enforcement of the law. All of these people can now be lawfully incarcerated in private industry prisons, put to work for pennies on the dollar, making money for these private industries that will ensure enough of the money is spread out to congress through lobbyist dollars and donations to ensure this cycle continues for eternity. In short, a very large portion of the population is now part of a criminal class because we the people elected to have it happen.

Thus the reason I cringe whenever I hear someone speak of preserving “our democracy”.

The Electoral College was put into place to ensure that none of the bodies of people were ever fully disenfranchised and that the votes of the many, while they may negate the votes of the few, cannot fully disenfranchise the minority or criminalize their individual rights and liberties. (A la the Second Amendment in the current upheavals and rebellions against our founding principles)

Yet in the independent States of this great nation, we routines have a single city or a few select cities that effectively negate the entire vote of the rest of the state. Some examples of this can be seen in cities such as Chicago, Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland, NYC and other examples of extremely large urban centers negating the votes of the people in the rest of the state. In some cases, such as California and Texas, it may take a few cities, but the same detrimental disenfranchisement of the general population still occurs. Dallas and Fort Worth alongside of Austin can negate much of the rest of the state of Texas if not all of it, while in California, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco effectively negate the rest of the state … especially the “real” Northern Californians up along the 395 Corridor North of Reno.

The concept of “one person – one vote” is not new and it should not be believed for a single instant that this was not discussed in great length among the founding fathers of the Constitutional Republic during the Constitutional Congress Conventions. There was a great and fierce debate going on at the time about the abhorrent practice of slavery, which, while not overly addressed in history classes in the indoctrinate institutions … I mean the educational institutions of today, remains a very real fact. That will be covered in a separate article, but there was a great concern that the Democrats of the day wanted to have their proverbial cake and eat it too.

In short, they wished for slaves to be considered as property or chattel (or res) as their personal holdings and wealth, but at the same time, to consider them as “humans” for the purpose of representation within the newly (or soon to be) adapted Constitutional Republic. Had they been allowed to have their way, an inordinate amount of political control and influence would have been granted to one of the most morally questionable bodies of people … in the form of the slave owners.

Had they been granted the “popular vote” or “one person – one vote” as they demanded, we would likely have entered into a war between the States much earlier if we had ever been able to unite to the point of becoming a singular nation at all.

Granted, the situation today is not nearly as dire in regards to the abhorrent practice of slavery, thanks in no small part to the sacrifice of more than half a million American lives (black, white and “other”). However, the underlying principles remain the same. Why should the voices of so many Americans be wholly disenfranchised as they are now? Is it somehow or another “just” that what works in Vegas be implemented all over the state?

Whatever happened to “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas”? Are the same laws that work in New York City really going to be just as effective or relevant in Ithaca? To make such a claim is akin to saying that all street laws should be the same regardless of whether it is a small street in front of a school or a major thoroughfare as they are both still streets at the end of the day. The entire concept is madness really.

Major, densely populated urban centers have different requirements, different needs and different ways of life than their more rural counterparts. What works in the big city does not necessarily work in small town America and conversely, what works in small town America will not work in large inner-cities. Why is there some perceived need to treat these very separate and unique locales as one and the same? Why are the voices of the more independent, rural families deemed to be necessarily dependent upon the vote of the masses gathered together in the inner cities?

The reason that we do not live in a democracy is because a democracy is inherently evil insofar as it is nothing short of mob rule. The rights of even a minority of the voting public can not only deny the rights of the masses, but they can make the free exercise of personal liberty criminal in nature … whether intentionally or not … and yes, the SCOTUS may actually take action … but then again they may not … as they now have the power to arbitrarily decide whether or not they will even hear cases … and even if they do, it could take years of ongoing injustice before anything is actually done about it, if ultimately they do rule in favor of the Constitution and the rule of law and for personal liberty.

America is in fact a Representative Constitutional Republic and in order to return to such a system, the Electoral College not only needs to be continued, but expanded in at the State level as well. Far too many Americans and far too much of America herself is being disenfranchised in the name of democracy.

 

Let us know what you think please!


 

Pin It