Why not? Ultimately the reason we have an Electoral College is to give additional voice to the states. Meaning to the citizens of small states so they're not overwhelmed by the big ones.
And so, we also need to dump the U.S. Senate, because like the Electoral College, it's another American institution that gives states--the small ones--an advantage over larger ones.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tries to make it really, really simple: “My view is that every vote matters. And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College.” Far-left echo chambers have picked up the cry, using the jejune argument that getting rid of the Electoral College is in line with the "one-man (err, person), one vote" principle.
In other words: Screw minorities.
That's right, the far left is insisting that minorities can, even should, be steamrolled by majorities. The elimination of the Senate and the states is only the logical conclusion of the left' rhetoric.
Because the far left's understanding of the Constitution and its foundational principle of separation of powers is wafer thin or because today's pedagogy has evicted civics from the classroom, it is necessary to revisit history. (As much as the far left also would evict history from the national discourse.)
The Founding Fathers (I know, such usage is offensive) knew how government could be and often was arbitrary, despotic and tyrannic. That government was not just England's king but also its Parliament. Self-government (e.g. Parliament), the Founders knew from personal experience, also could be oppressive.
In other words, the "will of the people"--the majority or plurality--could be just plain wrong, corrupted by self-interest (e.g. the Illinois Legislature) and blinded by political winds.
So, the Founders set out to find a way to protect the minority from the majority. They found it in the separation of powers proposed by Montesquieu, which led a Constitution composed of separate legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.
The idea was to avoid concentrating power. And idea of a federal government composed of states fit right into that concept. Preservation of the states, of course, was more than an idea; it was realistically required because the long-existing colonies had developed their own governments, laws, customs and culture. Abolishing the states and federalism to create a central, national government was a non-starter.
You would think that leftists, of all people, would understand how the tyranny of the majority could overwhelm the minority. The majority, for example, gave us Jim Crow and miscegenation laws.
So too, the elimination of the Electoral College would allow majorities in the liberal coastal states to overwhelm the rural and industrial states of middle America. (See the map below.)
Of course, that's just fine with the far left that's increasingly dominating the Democrat Party. As long as they have the majority of votes. But what would they think if they no longer were the majority? Or do they think they'll be the majority for ever and ever?
Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.