| Why We Need the Electoral CollegeBy Bret Hrbek
 
          12/8/2000
           |  |  | 
          
          Once
          the dust settles, November 7, 2000 will not be remembered as an
          historic presidential election but as the day the political career of
          Hillary Rodham Clinton was born.  The Clintons are like
          Dalmatians at the
          firehouse; they won't go away.  But they aren't as cute.
          
          Within days of her election, Clinton already began to show contempt
          for the
          very country that she serves by publicly suggesting the abolishment of
          the
          Electoral College.  Some argue that she advocates the dismantling
          of this
          uniquely American institution for selfish reasons-she realizes she
          can't be
          elected president through it.  I don't necessarily buy that
          explanation.  I
          didn't think the voters of New York would actually pull the levers or
          punch
          their chads for her either.  But they did.  And it makes you
          wonder which
          group of voters deserve America's disdain more, Floridians or New
          Yorkers.
          
          But, I do believe the Electoral College was designed to prevent people
          like
          Hillary Clinton from eventually sitting in the Oval Office.  It
          was
          designed, like the rest of the U.S. Constitution, to protect the
          individual
          rights and liberties from the masses and the natural socialistic,
          expansive
          and repressive tendencies of government.
          
          The Electoral College balances the interests of all areas of the
          country by
          amplifying the influence of smaller state populations and capping the
          dwarfing impact of mega-states that are larger than some countries.
          
          For example, Al Gore won the popular vote.  That's not in
          dispute.  But he
          won it in the armpit of America.  Gore only won 676 out of 3,112
          counties in
          the United States.  And of the counties he did win, where are
          they?  For the most part, the big cities and the southern borders.  Where do we
          spend most
          of our welfare dollars?  I think a reasonable guess is....the big
          cities and
          the southern borders.  So without the Electoral College these
          dirty, crime
          filled cities would determine who would become the president.
          
          These election results are anecdotal evidence showing us that liberals
          know
          how to organize in the cities and they know how to manipulate and
          intellectually and physically enslave minorities.  George W. Bush
          might not
          have won the popular voters of Americans, but he did win the popular
          vote of
          America.  Bush won counties representing 143 million citizens
          while Gore won
          counties representing only 127 million citizens.
          
          I raise these points only to demonstrate the continued need for the
          election
          of the president by state and not by the popular vote.
          
          Many people have already explained where presidential candidates would
          spend
          their time without the Electoral College.  The liberals would
          head to the
          cities and southern borders (representing about 500,000 square miles)
          and
          the center-right candidates would spend time in the southern states
          and
          rural America (representing almost 2.5 million square miles). 
          (Haven't you
          ever wondered why liberals want people to move to the city?  They
          know how
          to control them there.)
          
          If you want a real solution to our problems in America do not repeal
          the
          Electoral College but repeal the Seventeenth Amendment that provides
          for the
          direct election of senators.  This would restore the
          institutional friction
          in our political system that protects our individual rights.
          
          I won't defend everything about the original constitution or our
          Founding
          Fathers.  Slavery was just as wrong in 1492, 1776, 1789, and 1860
          as it is
          today.  We just acknowledge it now.  But, the Founders did
          strike a delicate
          balance in the government's structure to protect our individual
          liberties
          with three branches of government that represented different agendas,
          two
          houses of one branch with different constituencies and a federal
          government
          always butting heads with state governments.  Talk about
          gridlock, it
          created a small, inefficient government.  Ah.  Those must
          have been the
          days.  Nothing could get done everyone could sleep at night.
          
          We had the House of Representatives elected by the "people." 
          (Every time I
          hear that I expect to see Eva Peron on the balcony crying for
          Argentina.
          Can't you see Hillary looking over the Rose Garden from the White
          House
          balcony?  Where's Andrew Lloyd Webber?)  Senators were
          elected by the state
          legislatures.  The judiciary was elected by nobody but appointed
          by the
          executive and approved by the Senate.  And the president was (and
          still is
          God willing) elected by a hybrid of direct vote and representative
          government.  Throw in state sovereignty and you make Washington,
          D.C. rush
          hour traffic look like the Indy 500 raceway.
          
          Then in the earlier part of this century our so-called progressive
          leadership broke the balance when they cut the states out of the
          picture
          with the direction election of senators.  This is when federalism
          died and
          replaced with socialism.
          
          Now Senator-elect Clinton and her socialist allies want to do the same
          thing
          to the presidency.
          
          I don't trust democracies.  As oxymoronic as it is, democracies
          are
          organized mob-rule.  But they are the only political institution
          that can
          and will support capitalism.  With the direct election of
          senators though,
          Gallup Polls already has more power than McDonald's or Microsoft or
          the
          average small business owner.  I can only
          imagine
          how our rights would be trampled with the direct election of the
          president.
          I shutter to think.
          
          Looking back, maybe Patrick Henry was right to oppose the ratification
          of
          the Constitution.  Maybe he could see how it might actually
          evolve.  But I
          don't even think he thought it could ever get this bad.  I'm sure
          he had
          greater faith in the American people to stop this constant
          encroachment on
          our individual rights.  And he probably never imagined Americans
          electing
          someone like Hillary Rodham Clinton.
          Click
          Here to receive Political USA updates and exclusives
          Today's featured
          columns: 
          Ron
                        Marr tells everyone, "You're not the boss of
                        me."
                        
          The Cynic knows who
                        runs this country.  It's the stupid, stupid
           Join
          the conversation about the election...
          © Bret Hrbek, 2000
          Home
          View expressed are
          those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Political
          USA.