While we're dumping the Electoral College, let's chuck the states too

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?


Voting results in the 2026 presidential election, by county. Red counties=Trump. Blue counties=Clinton

Voting results in the 2026 presidential election, by county. Red counties=Trump. Blue counties=Clinton



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.


Leave a comment
  • Of the five presidential candidates who lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, four were Republicans: Hayes, Harrison, Bush, and Trump. John Quincy Adams belonged to the Democratic-Republican party which later morphed into the Democratic party.

    It's a small sample, but it suggests, if history be the measure, the Democrats shouldn't worry about the dissolution of the Electoral College.

    BTW, the minority that the Founding Fathers were protecting consisted of wealthy white propertied men, many of whom slave owners.

  • The map you use to support your thesis will be obsolete in the very near future with more and more states turning blue.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Correct, Aquinas. The future is Illinois.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    That's the spirit, RD.

  • So, Dennis, what does democracy mean to you? Not that long ago, some people argued in favor of the divine right of kings to oppose mobocracy. Are you now arguing that there is a divine right of small states to rule over large ones? The divine right of minorities to rule over majorities? The divine right of Republicans?

    As for your argument that abolishing the electoral college would lead us to abolishing the states, that is purely reductio ad absurdum.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Reductio ad absurdum.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: