People who should know better have discovered what they believe is a fundamental flaw in the manner in which U.S. senators are elected.
A full two years after the last presidential election, Democrats and Hillary Clinton still continuously grouse about the Electoral College system, given that she took the popular vote but fell short of accumulating the 270 electoral votes necessary for victory.
Now they’re carrying that same argument over to Tuesday’s Senate races with a complaint that even though Democrats somehow “won the popular vote,” they lost a net number of Senate races.
Salon politics writer Amanda Marcotte griped that, “Republicans lost the popular vote in Senate races by over 15 percentage points, but still gained two seats.”
The obvious response is that senators are chosen by a popular, “one person-one vote” system, but her complaint is that we only count the votes within the particular state in which he is running.
She made that clear later when she bemoaned “a system where people in Montana have more power than people in New York.” In other words, each state is allotted two senators no matter what its population.
The notion of electing each state’s senators by the total national vote is initially ludicrous — but as an increasing number of people who should know better embraced such an system, it suddenly becomes frightening.
Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign manager Robby Mook took up the “popular vote” mantle and wrote, “Looks like Dems won the popular vote by 7-9 points yesterday. That’s more than GOP margin in 1994 or 2010–both ‘big waves.’”
Mook’s statement may be understandable given his Clinton ties and her own complaints about U.S. voting system as set up by the Constitution.
NBC intelligence and national security reporter Ken Dilanian wrote, “The question is how much longer the American majority will tolerate being pushed around by a rural minority.”
That “rural minority” Dilanian grumbles about, incidentally, would be the same rural minority that feeds and clothes him, drills, extracts, and refines the fuel to run his cars and heat his home, as well as the raw materials needed to construct his dwelling.
It would include the same Montana residents Marcotte growled about, as well as North and South Dakota, Iowa, Alaska, and Wyoming.
The whole idea of the Senate is that each senator represents the State that elected him, without regard to its population. Each state is unique in its population, its industry, and its needs. It would be ludicrous to elect a senator on the basis of the political beliefs of the nation at large.
But they no doubt are aware of that, just as Clinton was and is aware of the Electoral College’s purpose — a compromise between electing a president by a vote in Congress — as in a parliamentary system — and the election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens — a pure democracy.
It gives each person a vote while at the same time preventing governance by “mob rule.”
And finally, when the left complains about being pushed around by low-population states and districts, they never mention Rhode Island, Connecticut, or Delaware. They always avoid Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He’s also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. To read more of his reports - Click Here.
© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.