Above the fold
One Love That Is Shared by Two
In a interview with the Washington Post earlier this week noted progressive Barbara Streisand described the United States electoral college system as “antiquated” and advocated replacing it with a system that allows the winner of the popular vote to win the election.
She went on to say, “If I could, I would end the antiquated electoral college. Twice in the last 20 years the popular vote winner was denied the presidency. This is an assault on our democratic principles, where the dictum should hold true: one person, one vote.”
And she isn’t the only voice from the left touting a change away from the now 243 year old way of electing presidents. South Bend, Indiana mayor and announced Democratic Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg suggested making the reform as well calling it undemocratic. Streisand would change it now if she could as she said, while Mayor Pete would do so down the road a bit.
- That is, they had the foresight to realize that a ground swell could occur. And when it did a simple popular vote taken on the matter could eliminate the electoral college vote and replace it with, well, a simple popular vote. Stated differently, over the course of time, this would open up the opportunity to repeatedly manipulate how the president was elected.
- What Barbara should know, and likely does, is if one person could do anything unilaterally in our union it would not be a democracy.
- Citing twice in the last 20 years as a reason fails to speak to the fact that a) its happened only five times in 243 years, and b) it happened in a span of 12 years when in 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes won the electoral college and lost the popular vote and again in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison did the same. The logic sounds much like two bad hurricanes in 20 years proves climate change, so we must change and now.
- And, we’re supposed to be United States, not necessarily always united people. States, as an entity all to themselves, have rights in our union and therefore each have two senators with equal say to senators from other states.
- Buttigieg says that we won’t know in the 2030’s which party would benefit. One, yes we do Pete. Two, if we don’t know which would benefit why change from the current, unless you don’t believe in states’ rights.
- Buttigieg hails from Indiana. It’s a state that could be the poster child for why the electoral college is in place. It has a) below average population making the two electoral senate seats important to them, b) is driven by farming creating a need for perspective that is anything but urban (ask them right now if they want a voice in who is the next president considering the effect on the state that tariffs are having).
The 77 year old Oscar winning Streisand might be an expert on “antiquated.” It looks more and more like her party’s current front runner sure does. But she is no expert on democratic principles. She should know that what she and other left voices are advocating to eliminate this “assault on our democratic principles” is actually an assault on our democratic principles.
Aren’t the real experts our founding fathers?
Comment section
The Founders were brilliant and created a representative republic because they were done with the King.
They were also brilliant enough to give the USA citizenry the ability to change the rules with the proper votes. Want to change it? Change it at the voting booth.
Here here. Bang the gavel.
All I know is that we should all feel sorry for James Brolin. It must be hell living with that thing.
Love as soft as an easy chair my arse.
He could use a Marcus Welby, MD house call for sure.
Related Posts: