Select Page

HORIST: Mayor Pete wants to get rid of the Electoral College.

HORIST: Mayor Pete wants to get rid of the Electoral College.

A few Democrat candidates have expressed dislike for the Electoral College, but they have not yet made abolishing it a major plank in their campaigns – that is, except for South Bend, Indiana Mayor Peter Buttigieg.  He says it is “undemocratic” and it is time for it to go.  In making a major issue of the Electoral College, Buttigieg is yet another Democrat that is following the agenda set by freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her colleagues now known as “the squad.”

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes – who tries his best to make left-wing gibberish sound intellectual – sees the Electoral College in a different light. On a recent broadcast, Hayes said this (and be ready for an incredible bit of progressive intellectualism).  He said: “The weirdest thing about the electoral college is the fact that if it wasn’t specifically in the Constitution for the presidency, it would be unconstitutional.”

Allow me to repeat that again.  “The weirdest thing about the electoral college is the fact that if it wasn’t specifically in the Constitution for the presidency, it would be unconstitutional.”  How is one supposed to respond to that bit of genius?

Buttigieg’s sudden interest in this outlier issue may be since all the really big issues have become the proprietary property of candidates who have the support of more than five percent of the Democrat voters.  It may also be since Buttigieg appears to not know the genius of the Electoral College and what it is designed to do – or better yet, to prevent.

And finally, it may have been motivated by the lawsuit in Colorado in which the Federal Appellate Court followed the Constitution in declaring that Elector Michael Baca had the right to vote for ANYONE he chose.  While he was elected as a Hillary Clinton elector, he decided to cast a write-in vote for Ohio Republican Governor John Kasich.  These folks are known as “faithless electors” – but it is not illegal.  It has been done in many elections in the past. That is how the system works.  It has never changed the outcome of an election.

You will recall how the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement tried to persuade a number of Trump electors to cast votes for Clinton – or someone else – hoping to either get Clinton elected or at least take away the Trump majority and throw the decision to the Democrat-controlled House.

Buttigieg is technically correct on one point.  The Electoral College IS undemocratic.  That is because we are  not a pure democracy, but rather a democratic Republic.  We govern through the elections of others who represent us and make the governmental decisions on our behalf.

We have the Electoral College for several reasons.  First, it is a ballast that spreads the power of the people over a broader geography.  Without it, just a hand full of states could effectively render the vast majority of states – and the people in them – powerless in picking presidents.  The Electoral College gives a voice to all states in selecting the nation’s Chief Executive.

It is the same reason each state elects representatives by district instead of at-large, as we do with the two senators from each state.  If we only elected our representative in the House at large, the major cities would effectively disenfranchise the small towns and rural areas.

The major benefit of the Electoral College is preventing America from falling into political and constitutional crisis.  As the theory goes, it is far better to be governed by a legitimate President than to have the presidency in doubt for months – and even years.

In those cases where the winner of the popular vote was counted out in the Electoral College, they are always very, very close elections.  Neither the winner nor the loser of the popular vote has a clear mandate from the people.  As we often see, close elections are settled by recounts and court cases – sometimes lasting for months and years.

While we tend to favor having the person who gets the most votes serve in office – seems only fair.  The benefit of the Electoral College is that it settles the most important single election in time for the inauguration of a legitimate President.

Consider the alternative.

Without the Electoral College the presidential elections of 2000 – in which former Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote, but Governor George Bush prevailed in the Electoral College – and 2016 – in which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but businessman Donald Trump carried the necessary majority of the Electoral College.

Without the Electoral College, both of those elections could have remained in doubt as multiple recounts would be undertaken in several states and hundreds of court cases would have been filed to influence every recount.  The process would have been tied up in the courts for months and even years.  America would have been without a legitimate President in the meantime.

Who would have the authority of the presidency?  Yes, one person would have had the popular vote lead on elections night, but all those challenges would have put that lead in doubt.  We have seen congressional races go back and forth and recounts and court challenges ensued.  In the meantime, that seat in the Senate or the House remained vacant.  There was no legitimate representative to swear into office.

One absent senator among the one hundred members of the upper chamber is no threat to the Republic – and the same is even more true if one or two seats in the 435-member House are vacant.  But, the President?

With the election unsettled, would the outgoing President just hang in until the thing is settled?  There is no provision for that.

In such a situation, any bill signed or vetoed by the person claiming the presidency would be essentially null and void.  The Balance of Power between the three co-equal branches would collapse.  No presidential Executive Orders would be valid. There could be no treaties or trade agreements.  Every power of the interloping President would be in doubt and his every action would  be unenforceable.

There would be no President to make appointments. None of the members of the Cabinet would be legitimate.  The authority to impose or eliminate regulations would no longer exist.

It would be a constitutional crisis of unimaginable proportions.

Following the 2000 election, we saw numerous recounts and legal challenges being fought out in the courts UNTIL the election was legally and constitutionally settled by the Electoral College.  There is no good reason to abolish the ability of the electors to settle an election – and a lot of good reasons to prevent Buttigieg & Co. from doing so.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

12 Comments

  1. db

    Any candidate, such as Butt-leg knows full well the purpose of the Electoral College and knows that our founding fathers saw the danger of allowing major cities becoming the centers of political power to run the nation. By making the EC it assured that all voters in all states had equal rights and power to determine their governance.
    It is candidates and people who want to do away with the EC who want to allow the major cities of the USA to run the entire USA. Already we have major Democratically controlled cities who flaunt violating Federal Law, demand federal aid, and harbor criminals. What would happen if these cities could run the entire Nation? They could vote to take land away, further rights away, confiscate wealth outside the city, make slaves of those outside the cities. In other words your welfare based voting bases, would now drive the USA and demand more and more until we have either another civil war or civil disobedience followed by martial Instead of being grateful for the welfare that is given those that receive it always want more and more. What would it be like if it were uncontrolled?

    Reply
    • Christel

      Seriously hope more American’s learn all the facts about ANY potential candidate thinking of running for the office of President. We could all end up regretting the choice. I know I will never vote for some young punk on a power hungry trip….Communism could POSSIBLY be the result. Be careful who you vote for….you may live long enough to regret it. I do not think there is much of a difference between parties these days like there was years ago! The vast majority of Americans want their freedoms….good jobs so they are able to support their family…good healthcare.

      Reply
      • Fire21

        You don’t think there’s much difference between the parties these days? How about the difference between socialism (Communism) and democratic republicanism! How about the difference between violence and civility! How about the difference between moronic thinking and intelligence! How about the difference between lawlessness and obedience! No difference my eye…there’s a world of difference!

        Reply
  2. JD

    He is right, the electoral college isn’t Progressive Socialism Communism Demoncratic because we are not in Progressive Communist Russia, or Progressive Communist China. We are in the United States which is a Republic where all people in every state has value and a say in who should hold Federal positions. Not having the electoral college would be just like other Communist, Socialistic Dictator Countries where the Few more populated areas rule and the rest of the people never have a say. Many are so dependent on freebies they will always vote for the hand that feeds them. They don’t care about the issues or taxes because it doesn’t affect them. This is why in the beginning of our nation only land owners (tax payers) were Voters because it directly effected them. The electoral college gave all people a say in our government but made it fair that all states had a say. The Demoncrat Party wants to stack the deck that they will have complete control of our Government. Removing the Electoral College and getting illegal immigrants to votes is there answer for full and complete control to turn our nation into a PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST COMMUNIST FASCIST RACIST DEMOCRAT ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT PARTY.

    Reply
    • Christel

      Agree with you 100%. You took the words right out if my mouth! Just need to get that message out to every single freedom loving Americans! Being born and raised for years in Germany…we came to the USA when I was 7. My father had me read several books when I got older! Then I asked him why he wanted me to read all those books he said he wanted to make sure NOTHING good was written about Hitler!

      Reply
  3. Steven L Grenz

    Very well said, Thanks!

    Reply
  4. Mark Pearson

    OK, so let’s REPLACE the electoral collage with a system whereby each county (or county equivalent body) gets one vote for President. Suddenly states that are “not in play” due to large voting blocks in populous metropolitan areas (cities) ) would be “in play.” (New York, Illinois and California would have candidates actually showing up.)

    Reply
  5. James Andrews

    Mayor Pete is an idiot and needs to go back to school! We live in a Republic, NOT a democracy!

    Reply
    • Ron P

      He’s just a little Boy that is still in THREE CORNER PANTS and SUCKS HIS thumb. He’s a SPOILED little BRAT.

      Reply
  6. Pamela Susan Keith

    You would think the rump humper would like the Electoral collage system due to the fact it might have given him his best chance at winning, That is if everyone else died before hand that is.

    Reply
  7. mikle

    who is going to be first lad.//?

    Reply
  8. spunky

    I don’t get into what a person with mental illness says about any subject –

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

Follow Us