As the President-elect prepares to rub his enemies' face in it, a phalanx of sham democracy advocates floods MSNBC with crocodile tears, lamenting the reality that the one-person/one-vote aspiration is not surviving the rigors of a democratic Republic.
Is it possible that these weepers are actually clueless regarding the mechanics of the process, or are they crassly trying to manipulate the ideal for partisan gain and a permanent majority in affairs of the nation?
Listen up, Reginald; there's a reason underlying the process, and subduing the masses ain't part of the plan. Full and direct democracy is often referred to as a "mobocracy"; for the record the collective noun for a group of 'Roos is a mob. Just imagine - a nation over-run with and managed by adolescent misfits with rudimentary pugilistic skills.
Our Founding Fathers wished to avoid the excesses and pendulum swings of popular sentiment. Accordingly, at the national level and in an overwhelming number of states, Senators have longer terms than representatives. Our Constitution provides for an indirect process, the electoral college, to solve the challenge of an unresolved Presidential election. Although specific language is missing, tradition has it that the electors award candidates based on the popular vote. Although in concept, the college can vote otherwise, and thus prevent an "unqualified" candidate from taking office, the real purpose is to provide a pathway out of an election result that falls short of providing a majority to any candidate.
Comes now those enlightened souls who would define unqualified for those among us who struggle with three-syllable words. They, apparently, are offended that we the people would want to take matters into our own hands - and are presumptuous enough to think we are capable of such responsibility.
Here's a reality for that crowd to weigh. Another intent of the Founding Fathers was to avoid the tyranny of the intelligentsia, the weight of densely populated metrosexual, bicoastal cities dominating the clear wishes of the general population. In essence, these skinny caramel latte-slurping superior beings from New York and Los Angeles, abetted by a somewhat tweedy set of academics, want to be able to set aside more than 60 million votes in favor of their "qualified" choices. Further, the concentrated population making these choices on our behalf (at whatever cost to us) might occupy some 300-500 square miles on a good day versus over 3 million square miles of territory in the total United States.
Clearly, one-man/one-vote is viable only depending on who the man (or woman) might be; the rest of us obviously don't count for much.
More reality. The pendulum does swing; today's long-term winner could become tomorrow's long-term loser - and the latte lovers will need to find another way to diminish or debase the votes of the 60 million who can't be allowed to count in matters of weight.
News flash! The wave(s) of immigrants, legal and otherwise, will only add to the challenge, concentrating increasingly in large cities, and further emphasizing the gap between the popular vote and electors' votes.
We've prided ourselves on tough campaigning, win or lose at the end, shaking hands, and wishing one another well as everyone moves on to the next race. The consequences of attempting to steal election results with trickeration and faux calls for direct democracy could tarnish our reputation for generations to come.
Caveat emptor . . .
Nota bene: Apologists and antagonists, so busy trying to overturn the will of the people (however misguided) may be overlooking the unrealistic hope that throwing the election into the House of Representatives could have unintended consequences and that a Constitutional amendment to abolish the College is highly unlikely.
That the danger a couple of centuries ago was not centered in Los Angeles or Chicago is a specious distinction; tyranny was a fear of the havoc inherent in large population centers such as New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Richmond, and/or Charleston. No matter. Resourceful independent citizens were not enthralled by taxation or regulation imposed by any bg city. True today, as well, as Seattle, LA, and Manhattan present often unattractive lifestyle choices to ordinary folk.
Recent Comments