ProbitPub

On July 5, 1787 our founding fathers gathered to officially ordain a new method of deciding representation in the Legislative branch. For months prior, they had been contentiously debating the merits and demerits of the Virginia and New Jersey Plans. The Virginia Plan, proposed by Edmund Randolph, advocated for a bicameral legislative body, however it argued for BOTH houses to be based solely on population. This plan said the people should vote for the Lower House of Representatives (but still based on population, so more populous states got more representation), and then those members themselves of the Lower House would vote to elect members of the Upper House of Representatives (not entirely dissimilar from the vastly inferior British parliamentary system).

Predictably, representatives from less populous states vehemently opposed the Virginia Plan. They came up with an alternative, whereby there would be only one legislative body (unicameral), and each state would ELECT ONLY 1 REPRESENTATIVE EACH. If the New Jersey Plan were in effect today, we would have only a Senate with 50 members (1 state 1 Senator) and no House of Representatives. Predictably again, representatives from more populous states objected and said they should have more representation than less populous states. So what happened? What did the founders ultimately end up doing?

They ended up with the Great Compromise of 1787. The founders decided to develop a bicameral body for the legislative branch, that satisfied the demands of BOTH populous and less populous states. The Great Compromise established a House of Representatives that WOULD be based on population, meaning that states with more people would have more representation in the House of Representatives than less populous states. However, the Great Compromise also established the Senate. The Senate is irrespective of population, and each state ONLY GETS 2 Senators, regardless of population. In this ingenious way, BOTH populous and less populous states got what they wanted, and we as a country got quite literally the greatest form of democratic representation to ever exist, balancing perfectly the needs of its citizens with the natural rights of states.

Several months later, the founders met again in September of 1787 to decide the best method for electing the President, or leader of the Executive branch. Now, for anyone with half a functioning brain, we can guess, without looking, that the approach the founders took for this endeavor would likely very closely resemble the approach they took to establish the Legislative branch (outlined above). And the people with at least half a functioning brain would be correct! The founders took almost the EXACT SAME APPROACH as they did with establishing the Legislative branch. On September 16, 1787 the founders came up with the Electoral College, which is the Executive branch corollary to the Great Compromise that established the bicameral congress. JUST LIKE the Great Compromise, the Electoral College balances the needs of more populous states with the needs of less populous states. It is quite literally a simple weighted system, where states get points commensurate with the population they have. For example, if Connecticut had 10% of the population of the United States, it would get 10% of the Electoral College vote for President. Again, to anyone with half a functioning brain that understands the Untied States is a UNION OF STATES, this is the PERFECT SOLUTION. Even today, people unnecessarily complicate the Electoral College so they can attempt to discredit it (unsuccessfully). There are 538 total “points” or electors (based on 435 House Members + 100 Senators + 3 D.C. Electors = 538), and simply put if your state has say 8% of the United States’ population, then you get 8% of 538 votes, or roughly 43 points. To anyone that’s taken basic elementary school arithmetic, this system makes perfect sense. States that are more populous get more representation to choose the President, but states that have less representation aren’t entirely frozen out of the election process.

This week, as Democrats continue to reel from their historic election collapse, that included losing the popular vote by the way, three dumbass Senators (Brian Schatz, Dick Durbin, and Peter Welch) are attempting to abolish our perfect election system THROUGH LEGISLATION. Before we even get to why this is a joke of an idea, let me remind the genius senators that the Electoral College is part of the Constitution, specifically outlined in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution, and FURTHER established by Amendments 12 and 23. This means that ANY CHANGE to the Electoral College MUST BE BY AMENDMENT, AND CANNOT BE CHANGED BY SIMPLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. That, our ENTIRE SYSTEM is based on this compromise that established the Electoral College, and ANY ATTEMPT TO ILLEGALLY DISCARD THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SHOULD BE MET WITH THE IMMEDIATE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION. You do not get to change the most fundamental part of our Republic and Constitution, by decree, 250 years after the country was established and NOT EXPECT REVOLUTION.

Secondly, I would remind the proponents of abolishing the Electoral College of the New Jersey Plan. Remember, one side of the country argued for 1 State, 1 Vote representation. And, quite frankly, given that we are UNION OF STATES, and that EACH STATE HAD TO RATIFY THE CONSTITUTION TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES, 1 State 1 Vote makes a lot more sense than pure democracy (ie > 50% of the national popular vote). So if anyone argues to abolish the Electoral College in favor of pure popular vote, first of all we dissolve the Union immediately, but also what those proponents don’t understand is we can then say, with MORE LEGITIMACY, that the President should be elected by POPULAR STAE VOTE. That is, whoever wins the majority of STATES, wins the Presidency. We currently have 50 states in our Union, so that would mean whoever wins 26/50 states (a majority) would be elected President. If this were the case, Republicans would have a big advantage over Democratic candidates for Presidency.

In fact, if you go back to 1948, ONLY BILL CLINTON, BARACK OBAMA AND LYNDON JOHNSON WON THE MAJORITY OF STATES. Jimmy Carter in 1976 and John Kennedy in 1960 won the Presidency DESPITE WINNING FEWER STATES THAN THEIR OPPONENT. And in 2012, Barack Obama won the statistically closest state majority he could win over Mitt Romney (26 states to 24). The point here is that, for those that argue to abolish the Electoral College (Again firstly we would immediately dissolve the Union, but assuming that doesn’t happen for argument’s sake) WE CAN ARGUE WITH MORE LEGITIMACY THAT IT SHOULD BE REPLACED BY A 1 STATE 1 VOTE VOTING SYSTEM SINCE WE ARE A UNION OF STATES. And if that were the case, the advantage of the most populous states like California and New York would be completely erased.

So, to these three dumbass senators Durbin, Welch and Schatz, I say BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR. I also say that the party that told us we must “protect our democracy at all costs” has now argued to abolish the Senate, pack the Supreme Court, and abolish the Electoral College so they can get back into power, sorry I mean to “restore our bureaucracy ” lol. These criminals are actively attempting to QUITE LITERALLY TEAR DOWN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN RULE OVER THE ASHES. To these evil, “full on retards,” I say, WE WILL MOVE TO IMMEDIATELY DISSOLVE THE UNION IF YOU KEEP PUSHING FOR THIS, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT WE CAN JUST AS EASILY ADOPT A 1 STATE 1 VOTE VOTING SYSTEM AS WE CAN ADOPT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE VOTING SYSTEM.

Our system is quite literally perfectly balanced, the product of not only intense well-intentioned deliberation, but also the product of the greatest minds to ever exist. Now, instead of those geniuses, we have certified dumbasses like Dick Durbin and Peter Welch attempting to guide us by the nose. These certified morons should remember that ANY ATTEMPT TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WILL BE MET WITH AN IMMEDIATE AND SUSTAINED EFFORT BY THE PEOPLE TO ABOLISH THE UNION ALTOGETHER, in addition to their proposal being vastly inferior to the 1 State 1 Vote voting system.