March 30, 2019
Politico argues we change the Constitution with fifty percent in a Politico poll
Timothy Birdnow
Apparently irony is lost on the good folks at Politico.
With a completely straight face they posted a column by Steven Shepard arguing in favor of a national popular vote to replace the Electoral College based on...a Politico/Morning Consultant poll!
It's hard to make this stuff up.
From the article:
So Politico could only turn up a fifty percent plurality. But that's not what makes this so funny. What is funny about this is that a.it illustrates how the media, completely ignorant of how and why we actually have restrictions on untethered democracy, are willing to use telephone polls to promote fundamentally restructuring our entire nation.
This is precisely why there IS an Electoral College and not a national popular vote; the public is fickle, and can be swayed by demagogues like Politico. The EC was an intentional effort to stabilize the electoral process, shield it from the wild mood swings of the general public. Yes, it was about empowering smaller states so as to avoid the tyranny of the larger, but it was also intended as a way to mute overzealousness on the part of the mob. In fact, that is what the Constitution is all about anyway; preventing passions from overthrowing the carefully planned, sober political and social system.
Hard cases make bad law. Just because the Democrats lost twice in twenty years in the College of Electors while winning the popular vote (something we don't even know is true, as once a precinct is called the vote tally stops, and we have no controlling legal authority guaranteeing that everyone who votes is eligible or legal) is hardly grounds to dismantle the system that has been in place for over two hundred and thirty years. That is an example of a hard case making bad law.
And, as Aristotle pointed out, democracy inevitably degenerates into a tyranny of special interest. I don't know if this Politico author actually understands that we don't live in a democracy, or if he just doesn't care, but the reality is we don't. There are no national referendums on issues, for instance. Would many of the things the Democrats hold dear to their hearts - the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act - have been passed had there been a public vote on those issues? Not likely. Liberals really should be careful what they wish for. If you want democracy, you had ought to accept actual democracy. The Left doesn't want that. They want veto power, in the form of the Courts, of Executive Orders, or Congress, only they want those things in their hands. Promoting democracy over republicanism is nothing but a trick to steal power.
What is doubly ridiculous is using a telephone poll conducted by a liberal media as justification. And especially one touting a fifty percent rate; how hard was that to come up with?
If there is such a clamor for this, why not seek a Constitutional Amendment? That is how you change things in America. But the Progressives know they won't get one, so instead will promote end-runs around the Constitution like the National Popular Vote compact.
If we are going to make end-runs around the Constitution, what stops us at the Electoral College? We can find ways around fundamental freedoms like freedom of the press. If we want democracy, why shouldn't we be able to vote the press out of existence? Hey, it's the Will of the People!
I guess the liberals forgot that Bill Clinton was never even elected with fifty percent of the vote. They didn't complain too much back then.
Frankly, I don't know if dopes like this Shepard actually believe this nonsense or if they are just liars. Either way, it would be funny if it weren't for the fact that there are people who will take this seriously.
Apparently irony is lost on the good folks at Politico.
With a completely straight face they posted a column by Steven Shepard arguing in favor of a national popular vote to replace the Electoral College based on...a Politico/Morning Consultant poll!
It's hard to make this stuff up.
From the article:
Half of voters, 50 percent, say the national popular vote should be used for presidential elections, the poll shows — more than the 34 percent who think presidential elections should be based on the Electoral College. Sixteen percent of voters have no opinion.
The debate over whether the Electoral College is a sound way to protect the power of states or a historical vestige of slavery-era America has careened through the 2020 presidential race, as Democratic candidates have almost unanimously called for its end in recent weeks. The Democratic nominee has won the most votes in six of the last seven presidential elections — but twice, in 2000 and 2016, lost the Electoral College count.
The debate over whether the Electoral College is a sound way to protect the power of states or a historical vestige of slavery-era America has careened through the 2020 presidential race, as Democratic candidates have almost unanimously called for its end in recent weeks. The Democratic nominee has won the most votes in six of the last seven presidential elections — but twice, in 2000 and 2016, lost the Electoral College count.
So Politico could only turn up a fifty percent plurality. But that's not what makes this so funny. What is funny about this is that a.it illustrates how the media, completely ignorant of how and why we actually have restrictions on untethered democracy, are willing to use telephone polls to promote fundamentally restructuring our entire nation.
This is precisely why there IS an Electoral College and not a national popular vote; the public is fickle, and can be swayed by demagogues like Politico. The EC was an intentional effort to stabilize the electoral process, shield it from the wild mood swings of the general public. Yes, it was about empowering smaller states so as to avoid the tyranny of the larger, but it was also intended as a way to mute overzealousness on the part of the mob. In fact, that is what the Constitution is all about anyway; preventing passions from overthrowing the carefully planned, sober political and social system.
Hard cases make bad law. Just because the Democrats lost twice in twenty years in the College of Electors while winning the popular vote (something we don't even know is true, as once a precinct is called the vote tally stops, and we have no controlling legal authority guaranteeing that everyone who votes is eligible or legal) is hardly grounds to dismantle the system that has been in place for over two hundred and thirty years. That is an example of a hard case making bad law.
And, as Aristotle pointed out, democracy inevitably degenerates into a tyranny of special interest. I don't know if this Politico author actually understands that we don't live in a democracy, or if he just doesn't care, but the reality is we don't. There are no national referendums on issues, for instance. Would many of the things the Democrats hold dear to their hearts - the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act - have been passed had there been a public vote on those issues? Not likely. Liberals really should be careful what they wish for. If you want democracy, you had ought to accept actual democracy. The Left doesn't want that. They want veto power, in the form of the Courts, of Executive Orders, or Congress, only they want those things in their hands. Promoting democracy over republicanism is nothing but a trick to steal power.
What is doubly ridiculous is using a telephone poll conducted by a liberal media as justification. And especially one touting a fifty percent rate; how hard was that to come up with?
If there is such a clamor for this, why not seek a Constitutional Amendment? That is how you change things in America. But the Progressives know they won't get one, so instead will promote end-runs around the Constitution like the National Popular Vote compact.
If we are going to make end-runs around the Constitution, what stops us at the Electoral College? We can find ways around fundamental freedoms like freedom of the press. If we want democracy, why shouldn't we be able to vote the press out of existence? Hey, it's the Will of the People!
I guess the liberals forgot that Bill Clinton was never even elected with fifty percent of the vote. They didn't complain too much back then.
Frankly, I don't know if dopes like this Shepard actually believe this nonsense or if they are just liars. Either way, it would be funny if it weren't for the fact that there are people who will take this seriously.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:48 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 778 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I guess it's all a matter of just whose Al -- excuse me, ox -- is gored.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at March 30, 2019 09:58 AM (rIYC+)
23kb generated in CPU 0.0134, elapsed 0.3367 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3316 seconds, 159 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.3316 seconds, 159 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
