August 28, 2006

If You Can't Win, Throw Out The System

The Electoral College system - an American tradition and governmental safeguard in place in the US for over 200 years - has suddenly become catastrophically unacceptable to some residents of California.

Sure - it was positively dandy when the Clintons were in power. There was no need to change anything, because all was right with America. Now that the letters have changed decisively from D to R, however, something has to be done. This wasn't supposed to happen.

According to Opinion Journal, legislatures in California are trying to usurp these constitutionally mandated safeguards to favor large, uneducated liberal urban populations of inner cities. The proposal would mandate that any candidate that got the popular vote would automatically get the state's electors - regardless of the number of communities that participate in the electoral process. In other words, if voters in LA, San Fran and San Diego outnumber the rest of the state, then these three cities determine who gets California's electoral votes.

I won't go into the number of constitutional and logistical problems this would create for all candidates and voters - the Opinion Journal article does that quite effectively - but the American public at large should be aware this is going on. It is being pushed by one party - the Democrats.

Yes. The Democrats want the dense inner-city populations and their infinitely successful approaches to problems like education, crime and corruption to run the national government without regard to what anybody else outside of the large population centers might think.

Times have changed so much under the long dark night of Bushiburton fascism that the very democracy that was perfectly acceptable a decade ago has collapsed entirely and needs to be replaced with procedures favorable to urban liberal constituencies.

Didn't y'all country boys and gals get the memo? Your votes are no longer needed or relevant, thankyouverymuch.

Stein hoist: Daily Pundit.

Update: I worded a particular passage above badly. Jim corrected me in the comments: " It would be more correct to say that if Candidate 'R' wins the majority in California (not the most likely outcome) but Candidate 'D' wins the majority of the popular vote nation wide, then instead of California's electoral votes going to 'R' as they are currently required to do they would go to 'D' anyhow."

Apologies for the oversight.