It’s no secret that the Democrats do not like the electoral college (at least, they don’t like it when they lose), but who would have thought that their own leader would be explicitly denying its existence in the Constitution? Well, Tom Perez, DNC chairman, has done exactly that.
Maybe it’s a part of the Left’s new strategy in the Trump-era, to simply deny that certain things exist in the Constitution. After all, if the Constitution is a “living document” that changes with the times, who’s to say that it doesn’t say certain things that it says?
You mean to say that you believe the Supreme Law of the land actually says what it says? What’s the matter with you!?
This is the 21st century after all, right? Get with the program! Whatever program that Tom Perez is leading.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, the DNC chairman claimed to a group of college students that the electoral college is not a creation of the Constitution (despite the fact that the Constitution explicitly set up the electoral college in no uncertain terms).
“The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution,” Perez said during a lecture at Indiana University Law School. “It doesn’t have to be there.”
Of course, he’s simply full of nonsense. The electoral college is in the Constitution, in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
“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.
But of course, the Left claims that this system is racist, undemocratic, even unconstitutional, and whatever else will advance their totalitarian agenda.
Perez himself has stated that Donald Trump did not truly win the election because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, a favorite rallying-cry of the sore-losers. Remember, just like Hillary Clinton herself said, anyone who does not accept the results of the election is a danger to democracy, right?
Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election.
That’s a direct threat to our democracy.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 24, 2016
That didn’t age too well now did it?
So is Tom Perez a direct threat to democracy by not respecting the results of the election? Is he a direct threat to democracy by denying that the electoral college is a part of our constitutional system?
When the Free Beacon reached out to the DNC for comment, no reply was given.
“There are many educational resources available on the Internet that provide clear explanations of what is in the document, including many from the National Constitution Center, which was established by Congress to provide a “non-partisan … understanding of the Constitution among the American people.”
“Rather than being elected directly by the people, the president is elected by members of the Electoral College, which is created by Article II, Section 1,” it explains.
Following his comment, Perez went on to explain his hopes that states agree to a “national popular vote compact,” in which states agree to give their allocated electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
Of course, that simply subverts the entire point of the electoral college: to temper the whims and passions of the masses.
Just as Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America, “I hold it to be sufficiently demonstrated that universal suffrage is by no means a guarantee of the wisdom of the popular choice. Whatever its advantages may be, this is not one of them.”
Making election of the President by mass popular vote is how demagogues arise. Of course, demagogues have been able to rise because of the increasing democratization of the electoral system (electors being required to cast ballots according to how the state’s population as a whole voted).
We can only expect more of the same if the Left continues their onslaught against this bulwark against such demagogues in the future. A popular vote of 51% or more citizens does not determine the wisdom of such a choice. Perhaps the one who wins the electoral college has better qualifications than the one who won the popular vote.
Remember that contrary to democratic nations’ tendencies to believe, a vote on a subject or a person does not necessarily justify the issue or person at hand. If that is at the forefront of more people’s minds, then better candidates can be elected, because our focus is not on electoral margins and quantities, but on the quality of those who put their names forth for office.
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter.Scroll down to comment below!