It continues to amaze me how misinformed and misguided Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is.
Even more incredible is the extent to which the Democrats have allowed AOC to become the figurehead for the party.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is the gift that keeps on giving for a blogger like me that likes to deal with facts rather than fictions and fantasies.
I wrote in January in
"Belief or Blather" that AOC could not possibly believe that the world was actually going to end in 12 years. She has stated that we need to spend as much in fighting climate change as we did World War II. If that is the case I would think she should be proposing that we go to war with China and India as that is where most of the growth in CO2 emissions in the world are occurring.
Than she released her
"Green New Deal" in February where she proposed banning airline travel, cows and replacing or upgrading
every building, factory, apartment and home in the United States with state of the art energy efficiency. In order to accomplish our climate goals we also have to provide free college, free healthcare, healthy foods and well-paying jobs to everyone as well. The world might not end in 12 years but that surely would be the end of the United States of America.
She then teamed with Bernie Sanders in May to propose that every post office in America also become a bank for "underserved" Americans as a "public option". She never mentions that there are already 109,000 bank branches and credit unions in the country and that postal banking was tried and disbanded in the early 20th century in the United States when there were far fewer banking options than today.
AOC is now out there railing about the electoral college.
I thought this was especially interesting when you consider that "Middle America" did not even exist when the Founders wrote the U.S. Constitution.
There was no state of Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Idaho or Wyoming.
There was no state of Texas, Colorado or Nevada. There was no state of California.
If you think about it, Maryland was "Middle America" when you looked at the 13 original states.
The "Far West" was actually Georgia which also was the "Far South" of the original 13 states that ratified the Constitution.
Another interesting fact about those 13 original states at the time of the ratification of the Constitution---New York had almost as many slaves (21,000) as Georgia did (29,000)--- in the first U.S. census in 1790.
How exactly was it a racist scam to benefit Middle America?
AOC and other liberals seem to believe that the electoral college is unfair because it diminishes the power of large states like California and New York and provides advantages to smaller states. However, this was also the case in 1787 as it is today. In fact, small states actually had bigger advantages at the beginning of our nation than they do today.
For example, California and New York (per the 2010 census on which current electoral votes are determined by) have a population of about 57 million. That is 18.4% of the total population and provides 84 electoral votes out of 538 electors (15.6%). However, Wyoming and the District of Columbia barely have 1 million in population between them (3/10 of 1% of total U.S. population) but they each get 3 electoral votes (1.1% of the total for their combined 6 electoral votes out of the 538 total).
However, in the first U.S. census (1790) after the Constitution was ratified, the two largest states in the union, Virginia and Pennsylvania had about 33% of the population and had 36 of 132 electoral votes (27%) in the Presidential election of George Washington in 1792 . On the other hand, Rhode Island and Delaware ( similar to Wyoming and D.C. today) only had 3/10th of 1% of the total U.S population at that time but their electoral votes were equal to about 5% of total electoral votes.
Does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have any concept of history or civics or an understanding of the principles underlying the U.S. Constitution?
I guess she did not read what I wrote about the Electoral College back in 2016 on the day it met to elect Donald J. Trump as President of the United States.
This might be a good time to read it again.
Electoral College Elucidation
(originally published December 19, 2016)
The electoral college meets today to cast its votes for President of the United States.
There seem to be many Americans who do not understand the logic behind the electoral college and the genius of our Founders in devising this system of electing our President.
I still recall my son coming home from school some 20 years ago with a homework assignment from his 6th grade teacher asking him to write a letter to Congress asking that body to vote for a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college and replace it with a popular election vote . She had taken it upon herself to have the entire class take this project on as a way to "teach" them about the U.S. Constitution.
Needless to say, this was not teaching. It was her attempt to indoctrinate her students with her point of view. I was not pleased and I sent a note back to her telling her that my son would not participate in the assignment. In my view, the electoral college was just fine. After all, our country is called "The United
States of America" for a reason.
It might be time for a little electoral college elucidation for those not familiar with all the other reasons why we don't use the popular vote for President/Vice President.
Our founders had very good reasons to adopt the electoral system of electing our President/Vice President instead of by popular vote.
Article 2, Sec.1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the method of choosing electors.
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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Our founders were very distrustful of a full democracy. That is why they established the constitutional republic that we have.
The reason was simple. A democracy can be very susceptible to the whims and impulses of the general public. A democracy is also likely to run roughshod over minority rights. These concerns were at the heart of almost every decision made in writing our Constitution.
I have written about this previously, including one of my favorite blog posts of all time,
"Improper and Wicked Projects". If you have not read it before, you should. It might actually shock you on how well our Founders understood human nature. Power, politics, greed, fallibilities, bias, conflicting interests, oppression. There is nothing going on today that they did not anticipate.
Because of theses concerns it made sense to place an intermediary group of electors between the popular vote and the election of the President in order to protect against these risks. It was also important that this group of electors would be independent of any pre-established body like the legislature.
Alexander Hamilton wrote
Federalist Paper #68 that explained the reasoning behind "The Mode of Electing the President".
It seems a little ironic today with all the outpouring of love for Alexander Hamilton by the liberal left (largely based on the popular Broadway play), and its criticism of the electoral college process, that Hamilton was the chief defender of the electoral college in the Federalist Papers.
It is also ironic that Hamilton stated that the electoral college method laid out in the Constitution was probably the least criticized section in the entire document as ratification was being discussed by the various states. This is how he began Federalist Paper #68.
THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents.
Hamilton went on to explain the key points of the electoral college system.
First, he explained why it was important for the people to have a vote in the process even though that role would only be to delegate the final choice to an independent body free of conflicts. Note also that no elected official may serve as an elector. The electors were also expected to apply discernment and reason to their choice. This is the argument that the anti-Trump people use in trying to get the Trump electors to vote for someone else and be so-called "
Faithless Electors".
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
The electors would, as is the case in other aspects of our republican government, provide an additional level of discernment and investigation as well as insuring that the vote is not a pure popularity contest but one in which a majority of the union of states is supportive of. They wanted to insure that the President was elected by the United States, not just the people from several states with large populations.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
Our founders were particularly concerned about the danger of the legislature being too beholden to one of their own and any possible corruption in the election of the President as well as possible influence in the election by foreign governments. This is another reason for the electoral college and the focus on the decentralization of the vote by each state's electors rather than by popular vote or by a vote in the legislative body as would be the case in a parliamentary system.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
The concern was so great about the centralization of power and the risk of pressure being brought to bear on the electoral body that the Constitution even requires that the electors meet in their respective states rather than in one central location. There is little doubt that the Founders would be horrified of the attention and abuse the electors are receiving from anti-Trump liberals leading up to the electoral vote. Everything they did was to prevent something like this as explained below.
Article 2, Sec. 1, Clause 3
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot...
Again, there was a rationale for this by the Founders as well. They believed that having the electors vote at one time and in one place for the President presented too much risk for turmoil.
And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
It is clear that one of the reasons that the Founders preferred the electoral college was that they were concerned that the people of the 18th century would not have a good sense of the character and qualifications of the candidates for President. Most would never see or hear the candidates in person. They could not truly judge their suitability in an age with no radio, television or internet. That is why it made sense to have the added comfort of electors who might know the candidates better to insure that the President is up to the job.
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
Of course, in the media age of today this no longer is the issue it was in the 18th century. Candidates are in the public eye and are subject to constant media scrutiny. Voters do not have the same reason to not know who they are voting for. This is where the argument for the anti-Trump forces that want to cite Hamilton in encouraging "Faithless Electors" falls apart.
If this was the only reason for the electoral college there would be a good argument to disband it and move to a popular vote.
However, the bigger reason for the electoral college involves the issue of decentralization and the importance of state rights in our governance. After all, as I told my son's teacher 20 years ago, we are The United
States of America for a reason.
We are hearing a lot today that the electoral college is unfair because it diminishes the large states like California and New York and provides advantages to smaller states. However, this was also the case in 1787 as it is today. In fact, small states actually had bigger advantages at the beginning of our nation than they do today.
For example, California and New York (per the
2010 census on which current electoral votes are determined by) have a population of about 57 million. That is 18.4% of the total population and provides 84 electoral votes out of 538 electors (15.6%). However, Wyoming and the District of Columbia barely have 1 million in population between them (3/10 of 1% of total U.S. population) but they each get 3 electoral votes (1.1% of the total for their combined 6 electoral votes out of the 538 total).
However, in the first
U.S. census (1790) after the Constitution was ratified, the two largest states in the union, Virginia and Pennsylvania had about 33% of the population and had 36 of 132 electoral votes (27%) in the Presidential election of George Washington in 1792 . On the other hand, Rhode Island and Delaware similarly only had 3/10th of 1% of the total U.S population at that time but their electoral votes were equal to about 5% of total electoral votes.
It should be noted that one of the reasons that Virginia was hurt in its allocation of electoral votes was because the Founders penalized states that had slaves. States with a slave population (the only state with no slaves counted in the
1790 census was Massachusetts. New York had 21,000 slaves, almost as many as Georgia's 29,000) were only given credit for 3/5 of this population for purposes of seats in the House of Representatives and the electoral college.
You get a real sense of why the Founders designed Constitution the way they did when you see the 2016 election results presented this way.
Or this way in a county by county graphic. T
rump won 2,626 counties. Clinton won 487.
They wanted a President of the United States of America. Not of two or three large states. Or a dozen big cities.
The electoral college makes sure that this is what happens.
In 2016 we are seeing what our Founders were thinking in 1787. Again, there was almost nothing they did not anticipate.
