Really Setting the Record Straight


I don’t want my taxes to pay for your health care and poor life/health choices. Everyone’s taxes will pay for any wars or violence your government engages in. You don’t have a choice in the matter. That is just an ignorant statement.

The prices of basic needs is determined by the marketplace, not government which will always make a bigger mess of things if it gets involved. Negotiate with your employer for the wages you want and need. Have skills that are in demand and needed. If you aren’t skilled in anything your wages and opportunities will be limited.

Your vote always counts. Cast your ballot in local elections as they often get ignored. Real change begins at the local levels of government. In the presidential election, the Electoral College ensures that your vote counts. Otherwise the major population centers would elect the president and the “fly over” part of the country would be ignored and unheard. This is how a Republic works we are not a democracy for good reasons.

Businesses are ran by people. And people will be involved in the regulatory and political processes. Over regulation is a burden and harmful to smaller businesses. Without input from the business sector some smaller business would be out of business or wouldn’t be able to be created in the first place. This would then increase the costs of goods and services and be ran by monopoly giants.

What is wealthy? Where is the line, at what measurement is being used? The term is relative in the extreme. The United States has the worlds wealthiest poor. But going off income and I’m not sure who is wealthy and who isn’t. But if we eliminated the Income Tax and implemented the Fair Tax this would solve the perceived problem as most see it. Everyone would pay their fair share.

Entering a country unlawfully is a crime. Age is not a factor, it is still a crime. To enter Mexico illegally can result in up to a 2 year felony prison term and up to 5,000 peso fine. Some other countries will imprison the illegal alien and sentence them to hard labor for decades. Even if the entry was accidental.

The United States is extremely negligent in it’s current immigration policy. In some cases not even enforcing the current immigration laws already in place. This is dangerous to our sovereignty as a nation and to our national security.

There are a number of ideas for granting the “Dreamers” and other illegal aliens citizenship. But it shouldn’t be free of consequences or easy. That isn’t fair or right to those who immigrated to the United States and waited years to get all the approvals to become a naturalized citizen.

Additionally if one comes to the United States waiving the banner of one’s homeland and shouting anti American slogans. These people should be denied access. I don’t waive the banners of my ancestor’s homelands. I don’t speak the languages of my ancestor’s homelands. I raise Old Glory and speak American English and so should any immigrant.

Crafty Conservative Comebacks for Loony Leftist Lines – The Electoral College


Without fail, after Leftists lose a Presidential election, they start talking about abolishing the Electoral College. (Funny how this isn’t a topic of discussion after a Democrat wins the White House, but that’s neither here nor there.) And this time around, the Left is bringing up the Founding Fathers as a means to try to justify their position. But fear not. I have some information you can use to turn back the arguments they present.

As with my previous attempts in this vein, I will separate the Leftist arguments with bold italics like so. My responses will be in normal type face. Granted, this is about as normal as I get, so be warned. And with that out of the way, let’s get started!

We should get rid of the Electoral College because it doesn’t work anymore.

Why do you think it doesn’t work anymore?

We’re a totally different country now. The Electoral College is outdated.

Just because something is outdated by modern standards doesn’t mean it lacks use in today’s world. We still use trains to transport goods across the country even though we have other and faster means to do it. Rotary and push-button phones work as well at making phone calls as an iPhone does. Even basic farming techniques haven’t changed in spite of the advances in farm technology.

Yeah, well, we should still change the way we elect the President. We should adopt a national popular vote so everyone’s voice gets heard.

If you voted in the last Presidential election and your ballot wasn’t removed due to legal or illegal activities, your voice got heard. You just didn’t win.

But shouldn’t the people get to elect the President?

They already do, just not in the way they think. When you vote in a Presidential election, you are actually voting for a slate of electors chosen by the state political parties. That is a feature of our constitutional republic, not a flaw.

More to your point, though, if you want to have a direct election of Presidents going forward, propose a Constitutional Amendment and see if you can get a convention of the states to go along with it.

Why do we have to do that? We should always elect the President by the popular vote.

At one time during our nation’s history, people went ga-ga over pet rocks. Then a little later, people went ga-ga over electronic pets. Both were popular, but eventually lost favor and are now the source of a lot of “what were we thinking” comments. Choosing a President is a bit more important than the fad of the month and has greater consequences. The Electoral College helps us not make rash decisions based on popularity. It doesn’t always guarantee a good President, but it certainly helps weed out bad ones who are popular, but not suitable for the job.

But we have so much better technology now than we did back when the Electoral College was put in place. We need to change with the times.

Better technology doesn’t guarantee smarter people. Our system of government relies on an informed electorate, but these days we use technology to numb our brains and keep us isolated from all but those we choose to associate with. That’s not a good model for governing because leaders don’t always have the option to block or ban people we don’t like. Good governance comes through honest compromise, and you can’t get that on Twitter.

Okay, but shouldn’t we get rid of the Electoral College because of its ties to slavery?

Not once you look at the context. At the time the Founding Fathers were discussing how to choose a President, they toyed with the idea of the Electoral College being based on population like the House of Representatives. The slave states loved this idea because they would have more votes to elect the President. Eventually, this idea was scrapped with the end goal being to end slavery, not to maintain it.

But it was created by racist white males who kept slaves!

Again, you need to look at the context. Yes, they owned slaves, while at the same time trying to end the practice altogether. The Electoral College shouldn’t be abolished because of its ties to slave owners, especially considering the institution itself literally has no other job than to elect a President. Even if it had any opinions on slavery, the power vested within it makes it a moot point.

Okay. Let’s say you’re right about the past, but what about the present? Electors in Wyoming have more say in a Presidential election than California does, but California has more people.

You are correct about California having more people. Which is why they have more Electoral College votes in the first place. The number of Electors is based on the number of Representatives and Senators a state has. Since the House is based on population, California has vastly more votes towards the Presidency than Wyoming does. And since California is a winner-take-all state, all the Electors go to the Presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. If we’re using population to representation as a measuring stick, Wyoming’s Electoral votes have more weight. If we’re using sheer number of representatives as the measuring stick, though, California runs away with it easily.

But here’s the twist. An Electoral vote from Wyoming counts exactly the same as an Electoral vote from California: precisely…one. When viewed from this perspective, the concept of one vote holding more weight than another gets blown out the water.

Perhaps the fix to the Electoral College issue is to do away with winner-take-all states and apportion the Electors by the percentage of votes each candidate gets. That addresses your concerns and mine simultaneously, and no one gets left out.

We have to abolish the Electoral College! We don’t want another President to win the Electoral vote and lose the popular vote!

Although this very scenario has happened twice in 20 years, it’s still a pretty rare occurrence. Prior to 2000, it had only occurred 3 other times, and twice within 12 years, for a grand total of 8.6% of the time the Electoral College winner doesn’t coincide with the popular vote winner. That equates to 91.4% of the two votes going for the same candidate. And in 0% of the elections did the country fall apart when it didn’t happen. No system is going to be perfect, but I think a 91% success rating is still pretty good.

If we had a direct popular vote for President, it would be 100%.

But only because we would eliminate the need for an Electoral College, and it wouldn’t guarantee the winning candidate would step foot outside of population centers on the East and West Coasts where the majority of people live. Although you would achieve your “one person, one vote” goal, it would be at the expense of the entire country. Cities can be pretty isolated places when it comes to ideology and life experience. It would be like trying to compose a Tweet using only the most used letters. You might be able to get your point across, but it’s harder than it needs to be.

And let’s not forget the possibility of voter fraud.

Those instances are rare and wouldn’t impact a national election.

We know about the people who get caught, but that may be only a fraction of the times voter fraud has been committed successfully. And, yes, it’s being done by both sides. However, the problem is even when the number of fraudulent votes is small, it only takes 1 over 50% for a candidate to win. The 2000 Presidential election was won by a few hundred votes. If even 1 vote out of 1000 was fraudulent, that can be enough to swing the results. Not every election is going to be a blowout, so we need to be able to account for each and every vote tallied and why it was accepted or rejected.

With the current dismal state of our election security, a national popular vote would open up the possibility of greater and more diverse forms of voter fraud, ranging from fraudulent registrations to multiple votes for a candidate from the same person to even counting votes from people who shouldn’t be voting in the first place, such as illegal immigrants and the deceased. A national popular vote would overwhelm the current process to the point of breaking. Then, one person, one vote might turn out to be one person, many votes.

We wouldn’t be in this mess if it weren’t for Republicans gerrymandering states for votes.

Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the Electoral College vote, only the number of votes a state has. And even if one party or the other reconfigures Congressional districts to its advantage, the vote for the slate of Electors is still based on the popular vote.

I agree gerrymandering is a problem and should be abolished, but it’s no reason to get rid of the Electoral College. It’s like saying we should get rid of the designated hitter rule because hockey’s too violent.

By this time, the Leftist might be getting upset and willing to punch you, so I’d better stop here. If you have any suggestions to add to this list or ideas for future Crafty Conservative Comebacks for Loony Leftist Lines topics, let me know!

Unconstitutional Legislation


The Democratic party leadership across the country really does hate the American Republic. They want to see it destroyed and replaced with a socialist democracy. Something our Founding Fathers were very afraid of having and took great steps to prevent it when they wrote the Constitution.

But today’s socialist leadership in the Democratic party being unable to get rid of, or ignore the Constitution, have taken steps to circumvent it’s protections. This is true in several states already that are controlled by this wicked Godless party. These states are California, New York, New Jersey, and Colorado.

Within these states their legislatures have already passed or in the process of passing legislation that gives all of the state’s Electoral College votes to whoever wins the national popular election. This is a very bad thing and the very reason why our Founding Fathers created the Electoral College in the first place and did not go with a simple popular vote for the higest office in the land and the free world.

How this works currently in most states is the popular vote it taken. Who ever gets the most votes in the State gets that state’s Electoral College votes. So the popular vote is used at the state level to determine the Electoral College results. Your vote does count. Some states even split that up on a proportional basis.

Going with a popular election only, and ignoring the Electoral College or stacking the deck against it in this case. This causes only large urban areas to be the voice in the national election for President. They have far more Electoral College votes. Let’s look at the current picture of those 4 states who have already taken steps to circumvent their voters rights by giving all of the Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote.

With in the Electoral Collage California has 55 votes, New York has 29 votes, New Jersey has 14 votes, and Colorado has 9 votes. That’s a total of 107 Electoral College votes. Currently only 270 votes are needed to win the Presidency. With just these 4 states, they are half way there on deciding who is the next President of the United States.

This creates an unfair situation that our Founders wanted to prevent from happening. Mob rule, the rule of Democracy. If other large states enact similar laws, it wont take long until those states alone will elect the President. It wont matter what the other states do or who they vote for individually or as a state wide result.

For example, let’s include traditional Democratic strong holds like the rest of the Left coast states of Oregon with 7 EC votes and Washington with 12 EC votes. That brings the total now to 126 EC votes with just 6 states. Now we include the East coast states of Mass. with 11 EC votes, Maryland with 10 EC votes, and Virginia with 13 EC votes. We now have a total of just 9 states and 160 EC votes.

We also can include the 2 Midwest states that are traditionally Leftist voting states of Minnesota with 10 EC votes and Illinois with 20 EC votes. This gives us now a total of 11 and 190 EC votes. Now the candidate is only 80 EC votes short of winning.

Add in the traditional swing states of Penn. with 20 EC votes, Ohio with 18 EC votes and Florida with 29 EC votes and the total is 257 EC votes given with the election results of only 14 states.

This can quickly escalate to the point that only the East and West coast states are needed to elect the President. All other states just wont matter and the election could be determined by those high density population centers.

I personally believe that these laws that are being enacted are Unconstitutional. And that the Electors should simply not follow them in those states that have enacted such laws that go against the Constitution of the United States. That is their right and duty as well.

Keep the Electoral College


I posted this on my personal Facebook page due to the responses I got from the following picture that I shared:

The replies attacked the Republic thinking in the terrible error of our day that the US is a democracy and it is not. And that the Electoral Collage was created because of lack of technology to count the popular vote. Here is what I wrote and you can always check my personal Facebook page for the replies and other details.


The replies to this post just go to show how much the Left has taken over the education system in the country. The Electoral College had nothing to do with technology at the time or in the future from now. It all has to do with States Rights because the United States is a REPUBLIC and not a Democracy.

Even in the 18th Century there were urban centers which were far more populated that the rural areas of what would become the United States. The Electoral College was created, in part, to prevent urban centers from dictating to the rural areas of the country.

To say that the government couldn’t do a popular vote count back in the 18th century is totally false. It is a lie and one you need to stop believing. Voting is always counted at the precinct level. In my home county of Polk county Iowa we have at least 171 precincts with the current election maps. And there are 99 counties in the State of Iowa. That is a lot of precincts. The 18th century would only be counted slower than the 20th and 21st centuries. Everything else is exactly the same as it was then.

The popular votes are counted at the precincts who then give those numbers to the county who in turn give those numbers to the state talleys. And local to Federal level elections are decided by the vote count. Even after the 17th amendment removed the Senate from the various State legislatures appointment to a popular vote. I for one would like to see that amendment repealed and have that given back to the States.

Our founding fathers were perfectly capable of counting the popular vote for the presidency just as it was counted for the House and other statewide and local elections. They could probably count it better than we can today, especially if we were forced not to use computers.

For the Electoral College, each state gets several votes equal to the total number of Senators (representing the State) and Congressmen (representing the people). Remember, we have a REPUBLIC and this is how they work so it is a level playing field for everyone.

I can’t say how the Electoral College in primary only states are chosen. I don’t live in one and have never been part of that process. I live in a caucus state and generally participate in every 2 year caucus cycle. In the 2016 election I was nominated and ran to be a delegate at the Republican national convention. I also was nominated and ran to be a member of the Electoral College. I didn’t win either of those elections but I put my name out there for it. I have usually been a delegate to the county, district, and state conventions a number of times.

Most states have who ever wins the popular vote, that party gets to choose who is on the Electoral College to represent the state. Both parties (and even 3rd parties) choose their electors ahead of time at their conventions. Iowa has 6 Electoral College votes. 2 for our Senators, and 4 for the 4 Congressional districts. And since current Iowa law is that winner takes all. Donald Trump won the popular vote in Iowa so the Republican party had their Electoral College electors vote.

Here is the map of the 2016 election results, it is a clear Republican victory far more red and than blue.

Within the Electoral College there are 538 possible votes, only 270 are needed to win. Which is a very slim majority. In 2016 Trump got 306 and Clinton got 232. Clearly the winner was rightfully Donald Trump. But if we look go with the silly notion of dividing the electoral votes by the popular vote then no one would have been elected and there would have been an unprecedented 2nd election done.
As Clinton would have had 268 votes, Trump would have had 257 votes, Johnston would have gotten 12 votes, and McMullin 1 vote.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


By the time you read this blog, electors will be meeting in their respective states to vote for the President of the United States. The good news is the electoral vote means the end of the 2016 campaign. The bad news is electors will be choosing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

To that end, Clinton supporters are attempting to appeal to Trump electors’ patriotism by persuading them Trump is too dangerous to be President. (Ambassador Chris Stevens was unavailable to speak on Hillary’s dangerousness because, well, he’s dead and all.) To do this, the Left is invoking a portion of The Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton that suggests it is their duty to vote against Trump.

So, do they have a point, other than the ones on their heads? Let’s find out.

Hamilton electors

What the Left believes it means – electors who must be persuaded not to vote for Donald Trump, thus preventing him from becoming President

What it really means – a last ditch effort to give an unqualified candidate the Presidency

Before we get into the whys, we need to understand the thinking behind the Hamilton electors. According to them, they derive inspiration from Federalist 68, which they say disqualifies Trump from becoming President. After reading it in greater detail, the points the Hamilton electors raise are at least somewhat persuasive.

Here are their qualms about Trump, from their website.

What were 3 tests that the Founding Fathers used to judge the
“fitness” of a President?

Election of a Qualified Person: As Hamilton stated [in Federalist Papers 68], the purpose was to ensure that “…the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

Preventing Election of a Demagogue or Charlatan: The Founders did not want a person who would play on public fears and temporary passion to hold the office. Hamilton again: “Talent for low intrigue…may alone suffice to elect a man… but it will require other talents and merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union.”

Preventing Election of a President under Foreign Influence: The Founders feared attempts by other countries to orchestrate the election of a person under their influence. The Founders believed, as Hamilton put it, that the decentralized, layered electoral college guarded against foreign nations “…raising a creature of their own to the chief magistry” of the United States.

Now, here’s the funny part. Every knock they make against Trump can also apply to…Hillary Clinton. Let’s review the facts, shall we?

Although Hillary Clinton spent 8 years living in the White House, that doesn’t make her qualified to be President. I’ve lived in my house for 3 and half years, but that doesn’t make me qualified to run a mortgage company. Well, maybe Wells Fargo, but beyond that, no. As First Lady, Hillary did…nothing. She tried to create a healthcare system, but failed. Her failures continued into her roles as Senator and Secretary of State. Holding an office doesn’t equate into accomplishments in said office. You actually have to, you know, accomplish something.

Then, there’s the “talent for low intrigue”, which is pretty much the Clinton M.O. since, oh, ever. However, Hillary’s talent isn’t as well developed as she thinks it is. Email scandal, anyone? Clinton Foundation? The rigging of the Democrat nomination? It’s almost like Hillary was an unpopular, dishonest, and utterly corrupt politician!

And while we’re here, I seem to remember a certain candidate who called a large chunk of the electorate “deplorables.” Damn that Donald Tru…uh, that was Hillary. Or maybe I was thinking of the time Trump said his greatest enemies were Democra…ah, that was Hillary, too. The only way Hillary is in the clear is playing on the temporary passion of the people. I’ve seen more passion in coma wards than at Hillary rallies.

Preventing foreign influence is a valid concern, but one has to look at the Clinton Foundation books to see…Hillary has taken cash from foreign countries as a means to peddle influence. Even with Trump’s connections to Russia (some of which are so poorly sourced, it makes Vox look like Solomon), one cannot ignore the other side of the political ledger.

But to hear the Hamilton electors describe it, only Trump is the problem. I’m sure it’s just an oversight because we all know the Hamilton electors are completely bipartisan. They say so!

Here’s the problem with their idea. The Constitution states if no Presidential candidate gets a majority of the vote, the House of Representatives votes for President, and the Senate votes for Vice-President. Hmmm…now, which party controls both houses of Congress? Why, it’s…the Republican Party! And it’s not like they can choose whomever they want, either. They have to choose among the three candidates who got the most votes.

Can you say “exercise in futility” boys and girls? I knew you could.

This leads to the question of why the Hamilton electors would do something that will ultimately fail. Aside from being dumber than a bag of hammers, it’s to undercut Trump, a candidate they never thought would be President. They literally cannot bring themselves to admit Hillary was a flawed candidate, so instead of sucking it up, they’re attempting to use Alexander Hamilton to justify their actions.

For as serious as they claim to be about preserving the Constitution, they’re ignoring the process to play favorites.

And here’s the best part. These folks are predicting gloom and doom before Trump has even done anything as President. And some of these folks are already pushing for Trump to be impeached right now…before he’s even won the Presidency under the Constitution. Granted, no one ever said the Hamilton electors were as smart as they claim, but the point remains. These folks aren’t doing anything heroic, justifiable, or patriotic.

They’re just being self-righteous asshats.

The Vote


The Electoral College meets on Monday, December 19th to officially cast the vote for President of the United States. Love or hate the Electoral College, they are the true deciding vote in our great Republic. They are the safeguard against the mob rule of democracy.

This year’s election has generated a lot of emotions. On the Left we have an outgoing President who’s legacy will be wiped from memory and regulated to a footnote in history. And the Left is up in arms about it. They wanted a continuation of the failed liberal socialist progressive agenda. But the people have spoken, and the presumptive President-Elect will bring that chapter in American History to a close.

But there are elements on the Right that share the fanaticism of the Left in not wanting victory for the President-Elect. False claims aside, the real motivation for them is loss of power and prestige as the Washington Swamp gets drained. The President-Elect’s transition is not politics as usual. And they are scared to death that they will loose their positions of power. Even with a Democratic win, they on the Right would still have their power and prestige.

The rules for the Electoral College, like the results of the general election itself is based in the rightful hands of the several States. Some States require that the Electors cast their ballot for the nominee that won the State’s general election. While others do not.

If these Electors do not cast their votes for the presumptive President-Elect there could be a backlash against them. Even on State has already stated that they would be replaced if they do not cast their votes properly. The backlash could actually even lead to a second Civil War in this country. And if the Electors do cast their votes according the to law and tradition. Then the Left will make another attempt to rid the Republic of the Electoral College. But that would take a Constitutional Amendment and they lack the political power to begin that process under the 2016 election cycle.

I believe that the Electoral College should do it’s job. To cast the vote for the Presumptive President-Elect as the winner of the popular vote in the majority of the several States. Thus confirming Donald J. Trump as the President-Elect of the United States.

Enough of the Crazy


No matter what petition one signs. No matter how many protests are staged. No matter how many acts of violence are taken against those who voted for President-Elect Donald Trump. It’s not going to change the outcome of the election.

President-Elect Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States. He was duly, fairly, and lawfully elected according to the election laws of the several states and the US Constitution.

Accept it and get over it. I lived through two elections that I didn’t like the results of because people were afraid of not being politically correct. You can and will survive the Trump Administration.

You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game (unless you are a toddler making them up as you go along.) Petition, cry, and cowering in a fetal ball in the corner isn’t going to change a thing.

There is only one way to get rid of the Electoral College that you didn’t complain about in 2004, 2008, or in 2012 for some reason. That is to have a Constitutional Amendment. You might be able to accomplish that process by the 2024 election if you work hard enough on it. But it would not be any sooner than that. And I will fight it every step of the way. The Electoral College is a safe-guard to our Republic. I want it to stay no matter who wins the election because of it.

It would be far easier to reform the rules at the state level. Ending the winner-take-all rules that are currently in place. But again this isn’t going to impact the 2016 election one iota. But it might be able to impact the 2020 election with hard word and determination.

So stop whining. Accept the things you cannot change. Have courage to change the things you can. And have the wisdom to know the difference.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


After Donald Trump won the Presidency, the Left was stunned. Then, they were sad. Then, they were mad. Then, they were violent and destructive. And that was just on November 9th!

Out of the distress came a renewed call to get rid of the Electoral College because Trump didn’t win the popular vote. If you remember, there were similar calls after the 2000 election where George W. Bush was elected in spite of Al Gore winning the popular vote.

Yet, these folks were strangely silent in 2008 and 2012. Hmmmm…

On the plus side, it gives us a chance to review the Electoral College and why the Left dislikes it.

Electoral College

What the Left thinks it means – an antiquated voting system created by racists that needs to be replaced by the popular vote

What it really means – a voting system that works better than people think

If you look over the history of the Electoral College, you’ll find two things. One, they don’t have much of a football program. And two, more often than not, the popular vote and Electoral College vote coincide. Counting the 2016 election, there have been only 5 times when the popular vote and Electoral College vote differed.

Now, consider the fact we’ve been electing Presidents since 1789. That’s 58 elections in 227 years, kids. Doing the math, the percentage of Presidential elections where the popular vote and Electoral College vote results don’t match is 8.6%. Oddly enough, that seemed to be the margin of error of a lot of media polls done this year.

Even if you run the numbers by the number of Presidents we’ve had, it’s 1 out of 9 elections, or 11.1%. Come to think of it, that might have been the margin of error for media polls this year. Either way, it’s pretty rare that it happens.

So, why do we have so many people wanting to get rid of the Electoral College? A lot of it comes down to ignorance of the process. What the anti-Electoral College side wants is for a direct election of officials, but what they don’t understand is the vote is a direct election, but not in the way they think.

When you vote for President, you’re not actually voting for the candidate. What you’re doing is voting for a slate of electors, which have been chosen by the political parties in your state. Whoever gets the most votes in the state gets that state’s slate of electors.

In other words, it’s what the pro-popular vote folks want, just in a slightly different form than they understand.

The other big reason behind the anti-Electoral College sentiment is purely political. If we switch the way we elect Presidents to a popular vote, that means larger cities and states can dictate who gets elected. And who tends to run larger cities?

Yeah. Leftists.

Switching to the popular vote would be a boon for Leftists, who tend to consolidate their bases of power in cities. Oddly enough, these are also the areas where there is voter fraud. Yeah, yeah, I know the Left says voter fraud doesn’t happen, but these are the same people who tell us Hillary Clinton had the experience to be President even though her only experience as President was as a resident in the White House as her husband was playing “Hide the Cigar” with interns.

So, why should we keep the Electoral College? The system isn’t broken, no matter how many Leftists cry about it. If you accept the results when the Electoral College vote goes the way you want, you have to accept them when it doesn’t. This isn’t like a Choose Your Own Adventure book where you can cheat by looking at the results of a choice and then decide which one “counts.”

Also, getting rid of the Electoral College means having to replace it with something, and the popular vote just isn’t the best option since it can be gamed easily by both sides of the political spectrum. All it takes is people just dishonest enough to do it. But I’m sure there aren’t any dishonest political figures out there, right?

There is one more reason we should keep the Electoral College, and I admit it’s more of a personal one.

It drives the Left crazy.

The Electoral College


Every four years we hear the same thing. People don’t like the Electoral College. They want the popular vote to stand. And this misguided thought comes from all sides. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike. But we must never abandon the Electoral College.

If we had gone that route the last two times it has happened. Then Al Gore would have been President during the 9/11 crisis when the US was attacked by Islamic Terrorists on our own soil. And Hillary Clinton would be the current President-Elect. That is of course if nothing else changed in the past 16 years which is highly unlikely.

The Electoral College is a staple of our Great Republic. It needs to remain in place. Without it the largest population centers on the East and West coasts would decide the presidential elections. And those of us in more rural or smaller communities would be “fly over” for the candidates.

They would never come to Iowa and never have to answer a farmer at the State Fair. They would not have to come to get our votes because they wouldn’t matter without the Electoral College.

Now the Electoral College does have its flaws. When the Electoral College meets in December to cast the official vote for President of the United States. They are not bound to cast that vote for the candidate or nominee that won their state’s popular vote. They can vote for anyone or abstain from voting if they choose.

Most states also have a winner-take-all when it comes to the Electoral College. Which ever nominee wins the popular vote in the state, gets all of that state’s Electoral College votes as well. It would be more representative to split the Electoral Votes by the same percentage as the popular vote.

But these two flaws are minor when it comes to the importance of keeping this institution in place. It is a hallmark of the Republic.

The Case is Being Made


It’s already being discussed in some circles of our political spectrum to create a viable 3rd party nominee for President. I remarked about this in a previous post on how it could possibly happen in this election cycle. And now it’s looking more likely every day.

As far as the Democrats go, they already have a 3rd party candidate running, Bernie Sanders. And if he doesn’t get the nomination he may again split off as an independent alternative to Hillary Clinton. He has a sizable following that she cannot win over to her banner.

And we have the GOP. Unfortunately the party of vote splitting. In the past it’s always been the Republicans who end up splitting their voter base with a 3rd party nominee. Which enables the Democrats to win the election because they unify and rally behind their nominee.

Those in favor of a 3rd party split nominee for the Republicans in this election cycle want something different. Not just a protest vote against the establishment and the 2 major parties. Such candidates are not viable and your vote ends up being wasted.

No this time the independent 3rd party nominee must be viable. They must be able to win a few states in the general election. Not just getting a few votes. No 3rd party candidate has ever done that before in a presidential election year.

This time the 3rd party nominee must prevent the major parties or other independents running for President from obtaining the needed 270 electoral votes. That is the goal of those looking into a possible 3rd party independent nominee.

To have someone who can really make a difference in the outcome of the election. To force the Electoral College to turn the election over to the US House of Representatives and have the President elected there instead.