Sometimes Intellectual Comment Is Annoying

There is something to thinking out loud with ideas. But propagating crazed concepts like eliminating pieces of our government is annoying.

In the aftermath of the 2016 election, countless liberals/Democrats were outraged by the results. For the second time in five presidential elections, the Republican nominee won without a majority of the popular vote. I heard countless pundits say this was wrong, and against democracy. I guess they missed the words of Benjamin Franklin when asked about our new nation, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

One of the most curious was an editorial in the Washington Post, written by a Miami non-fiction book author. In States are a relic of the past. It’s time to get rid of them, Mr. Lawrence Samuel was skeptical of the concept of the United States of America:

The United States of America…In 1776, when this country officially became the United States of America, the words signified a bold idea. Geographic neighbors had formed alliances previously in history to form nations, of course, but these united states shared a vision and philosophy that was literally revolutionary…

…But times have changed, and we need to rethink the notion of the “United States of America.” Our states are no longer culturally diverse regions with their own respective identities; rather, they are artificially constructed geographic entities that certainly would not be formed today. Borderlines between states are especially nonsensical. Pensacola, Fla., is a lot more like Mobile, Ala., than Miami. Upstate New Yorkers are less than happy about being in the same tax pool as Manhattanites.

I don’t question upstate New Yorkers hate the high tax rates inflicted upon them by the liberals in Albany. I know many friends in California who despise what the Sacramento socialists have done to the former Golden State. My response is, “Sucks to be you, get the hell out of there!” As a former Louisiana resident, now adopted Texan, I would not want my taxes set by the liberals in Sacramento, Albany, or Austin TX for that matter. But Mr. Samuels sees so issue in it.

His writing goes on how the car helped us travel at will, compressing the country and making the states more homogenous. Mr. Samuel believes the Internet has shrunk our differences even more. Completely irrelevant , but I thought of this article after reading multiple liberal complaints of the Electoral College.

The usual liberal attack is the Electoral College is “undemocratic,” as a minority of the voting population can elect the president. True. It is also the process established by the Constitution. That process was very attuned to the worries of smaller states at the Constitutional Convention. States like Delaware were concerned they would be overridden by large states (e.g., New York) and have no input in government. The first solution, a bi-cameral legislature with a House of Representatives to represent the people, and a Senate to represent the states. Next, an indirect method of electing the president, the Electoral College. This ensures all states have a say in selecting this one-third of the government.

Another alleged issue is this makes the voters of solid blue or sold red irrelevant. If candidates know a state will vote for them, they will not pay attention to the views of the state’s voters. So liberals are concerned with the voter issues in large states, but not smaller ones. Interesting. Wasn’t that what the Electoral College established to prevent?

There is a question if an elector will vote against the election results of his state. The matter was settled by the Supreme Court in Chiafalo v Washington.  Mr. Brian Chiafalo, an elector pledged to Hillary Clinton in 20216, voted for Colin Powell instead. The state fined him $1,000 and replaced him with another elector. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously this was proper, as Article II of the Constitution states “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” Issue resolved.

Finally, a question of can the Electoral College depress voting by the general public. Looking at the number of voters in the presidential elections, it has trended up in both total vote and percentage of the registered voters over the last few decades.

But the thing that annoys me is why make a worthless argument. Several Democratic Socialists candidates in this election cycle have openly called for the elimination of the senate and the presidency, among other radical ideas. It amazes me not one interviewer asked the most obvious question: How will you do this?

Eliminating the states would require a constitutional convention. The federal government did not create the states, the states created the federal government to handle limited issues they could not handle (e.g. controlling international commerce, printing money). Even the most radical states would never call for that.

Removing a branch of the government (the presidency) or a house of the congress would at the very least call for amending the constitution. The primary method is though the Congress (a proposal amendment would require a 2/3 vote of both houses, then approval of 3/4s of the legislatures). The other method is by a convention of states if called by 2/3 of the state legislatures, and sequent approval of ¾ of the legislatures.

No state will ever willingly enter into a suicide pack like that. Why anyone takes ideas like this seriously is beyond me. It would be intelligent and logical to ignore these plans as fantasies, while exposing people proposing things like this as the radicals they are. Will the 4^th Estate, and the Republican party candidates, start challenging this misinformation?