Analyst warns of Left’s gathering threat to Electoral College — and the U.S. Senate

by WorldTribune Staff, September 8, 2019

The Left has its sights set on eliminating the Electoral College and, if successful, the Senate could be the next U.S. institution to fall, a political analyst wrote.

“Constitutionalists need a defensive strategy; they need to batten down the political hatches to be prepared for the storm that’s coming,” James Pinkerton wrote for Breitbart on Sept. 5.

2016 Electoral College map. / Gage / Creative Commons / CC By SA 4.0

“If we were to start revising the 230-year-old precedent of the Electoral College, we’d be at risk of revising everything — and not for the better,” Pinkerton wrote. “Moreover, we can add an important additional point: If we got rid of the Electoral College, we’d also be getting rid of the U.S. Senate.”

Pinkerton noted that “As is so often the case with leftist causes these days; the spearhead is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York; being social-media-savvy and telegenic, she’s the star of the progressive A-Team.”

In an Oct. 6, 2018 tweet, AOC said: “It is well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery’s power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic.”

Last month, the self-described socialist slammed the Electoral College, calling it a “scam… racial injustice,” which “effectively weighs white voters over voters of color.” What was needed instead, she continued, is a “one person, one vote system,” in which “all our votes are counted equally.”

On Aug. 21, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa tweeted, “Actually @AOC, eliminating the Electoral College would silence our voices here in Iowa and in many other states across the country.”

Ernst, who is up for re-election next year, added: “This is just more evidence of how out of touch the Democrats have become.”

Pinkerton noted: “We might pause over Ernst’s words: The Hawkeye State lawmaker is shrewdly juxtaposing ‘our voices here in Iowa’ with ‘out of touch’ Democrats. So we can see: Ernst is seeking to rally the interests of her small state (six electoral votes) against the views of AOC’s big state (29 electoral votes).

“Since Ernst is running in Iowa, it’s smart for her to stick up for Iowa. To be sure, New Yorkers see it differently — but that’s no surprise. What would be surprising is if anyone in Iowa thought it was in Iowa’s best interest to bow down to New York. “

On Aug. 23, Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas also tweeted back at AOC: “Abolishing the Electoral College means that politicians will only campaign in (and listen to) urban areas. That is not a representative democracy. We live in a republic, which means 51% of the population doesn’t get to boss around the other 49%.”

Pinkerton noted: “We can admire Crenshaw’s stipulation that the U.S. is a ‘republic.’ He’s quite right, of course, insofar as James Madison’s Constitution explicitly lays out a formula for a mixed government, aimed at thwarting both tyranny and mob rule. (The nuances of such small ‘r’ republicanism were once the staple of high-school civics classes — that is, the ‘old-fashioned’ education that lamentably disappeared amidst the newfangled quest for relevance and political correctness.)”

One group making a strong constitutional defense of the Electoral College, Pinkerton noted, is the American Legislative Exchange Council, an assembly of state legislators from across the nation.

“The Electoral College respects and protects states within our constitutional republic,” the council said. “It has balanced the interests of rural and urban states, requiring serious presidential candidates and political parties to attract support from a genuine cross-section of the American public, for the past 58 presidential elections.”

The Electoral College and the Senate “are linked because they follow related political formulas: Each state, no matter how big or small, gets two Senators, and an Electoral Vote for each Senator. … So if we ever were to change the College, the temptation to change the Senate, too, would be irresistible,” Pinkerton wrote.

“The stakes are high. Small states that wish to defend their powers can’t afford to let their elected officials mumble around on the fate of the Electoral College. As we know from other issues, many Democrats have proven themselves skilled at talking one way at home while voting another way in the capital.”

The Electoral College, Pinkerton wrote, “was central to our constitutional founding; it was the brilliant political compromise that enabled the forming of a robust union in the first place. You see, back in 1787, the small states, such as Delaware and Vermont, insisted on the College as the price for ratifying the Constitution and joining the union. To put that another way, if it were not for the Electoral College, there might never have been a United States. (As an aside, today, both Delaware and Vermont are strongly Democrat.)”

Intelligence Brief __________ Replace The Media