Senate Democrats File Bill to Eliminate the Electoral College – They Need to Read the Constitution

We are indeed fortunate to live in the United States, a nation that is governed by what has to be the wisest, most carefully crafted governing document that exists in the world today – the United States Consitution. Every act that the national government is authorized to take on our behalf, every role, and every requirement for every elected official, is documented therein.

This includes elections, most particularly the method we use to elect the chief executive – the President of the United States. As the country is a constitutional republic consisting of 50 sovereign states, each state holds its own election for a slate of electors, who meet to elect the president. This is colloquially known as the Electoral College. The slate of electors is expected to vote for the presidential candidate who won the state’s elections, and by and large, that’s what happens, barring the occasional “faithless elector.”

Our elected representatives’ roles are defined by the Constitution, and they take an oath to uphold that Constitution. That being the case, it would be nice if some of them would read it; then we wouldn’t be subjected to egregious stupidity like this:

BREAKING: A group of Senate Democrats introduce bill to abolish the Electoral College, restoring democracy by allowing the direct election of presidents through popular vote alone.

— Senate Judiciary Committee (@JudiciaryDems) December 16, 2024

There are so many things wrong with this it’s hard to know where to begin – so let’s begin at the beginning.

First, the Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, states in part:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

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.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

First, we hold elections to determine who the electors will be, and they vote for the president. That’s not the way it’s generally described, but that’s how it works. The apportionment of electors is a brilliant system that ensures that every state will have a say in presidential elections; otherwise, every presidential election would be decided in a few major cities. 

But most of all, these “Senate Democrats” clearly do not comprehend that they cannot just pass a bill to abolish this system. This would require a constitutional amendment, meaning a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the 50 states – 33 states. Good luck with that.

Second, on the claim of “restoring democracy,” one cannot restore what has never been the case. The United States was founded as a constitutional republic and remains a constitutional republic to this day. The words “democrat” “democratic” and “democracy” appear nowhere in the Constitution, although Article 4, Section 4 states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Also, “restore” means “return to a preceding state.” The Electors system has been in place since the Constitution was ratified. There’s nothing to restore.

See Related: 

Congressional Progressives Never Learn: It’s Not the Messaging, It’s the Message

Clueless in Minnesota: Jazz Hands Walz Can’t Figure Out Why Billionaire Won When He and Kamala Didn’t

Finally, there is no popular vote for president. None. The Constitution does not allow for it. Oh, the “popular vote” is oft-quoted as a statistical curiosity, and it can be interpreted as giving an incoming president a mandate – and Donald Trump’s 5-million vote lead over Kamala Harris seems to have done.

Have none of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee ever even seen a copy of the Constitution? The drafting and submission of such a bill, never mind the taking to X to brag about it, is nitwittery of the worst sort. In a sane country with a sane electorate, this kind of stupidity should result in an electoral rousting in the nitwits in question’s next election. This sort of ignorance is – or, at least should be – disqualifying.

This post was originally published on this site