Wednesday, March 20, 2019

The Electoral College


I understand that more and more prominent Democrats, like Elizabeth Warren for example, are calling for the elimination of the Electoral College, making presidential elections depend entirely on the popular vote. Sounds good doesn’t it? Of course in real life that means:

1) that the outcome of our presidential elections will be entirely determined by a handful of big cities

2) that the residents of small population states like North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, etc., whose concerns are MUCH different than those of urban areas, will have no significant say in presidential elections

3) that presidential candidates will be able to focus their campaigns entirely on the largest cities and could totally ignore the rest of the country

4) that presidents will be elected by people who do not know and could not care less about the concerns of people in rural areas or low population states. For example, urban residents can call 911 and have police at their doorstep in minutes. Many have no clue what it’s like to live in rural areas where the nearest law enforcement may be a half-hour or more away. These urban residents will elect presidents who support their gun policies.

Urban residents have access to bus, taxi, and commuter train service and have no clue how important cars, trucks and farm vehicles are to rural residents. These urban residents will support national highway policies, gas taxes and auto taxes that would be detrimental (to say the least) to rural life.
Most urban residents don’t have a clue about farms. For example, they don’t understand the importance of water and dams to many western farmers, and many urban residents seem more concerned about the impact of cow flatulence on global warming, and the importance of treating animals like people than they are about where their meat ultimately comes from—and they wouldn’t care until their policies put so many farmers out of business that it affected big city grocery stores. By then it would be too late.

This doesn’t even scratch the surface of differences between life in major urban areas and life in rural areas or low population states. But people in a few of our largest cities would elect presidents who would promise the world to the cities and could afford to completely ignore everyone else. Of course those living in rural areas and small population states would have to help pay for these future campaign promise to the cities!

Welcome to life without the Electoral College—where people living in 1% of the land would control the fate of everyone living in the 99%. But, it would be good for Democrats. And that is the whole point.

1 comment:

Susan Lynn said...

Absolutely true!!