"A Republic Madam, If You Can Keep It..."

Upon emerging from Independence Hall in Philadelphia that sweltering day in early July, 1776, Benjamin Franklin was asked a question by an interested citizen.  She asked: "What kind of government have you given us, Mr. Franklin?"

He answered, "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it!"

That statement is more meaningful to us Americans these days than ever before.  And that's because there appears to be an all-out assault on the Electoral College, the creation of Mr. Franklin and his other patriots that fateful July 2nd (yes, it was signed on the 2nd; look it up!).  And this effort to remanufacture America is being led by the newly-elected Democrat socialists and communists and Marxists and Climate Conquistadors and Social Justice Warriors, and seemingly all of their 2020 POTUS candidates.  

Mr.  Franklin and his compadres were worried that "mob rule" could emerge if majority rule were enacted.  That's why they opted for a Representative Republic.  Yet, the Democrats tell us that we need a direct-democracy in order to "make every vote count."  They tell us we need to scrap the Electoral College and install a National Popular Vote in its place.  Well, Pilgrim, that's exactly what we don't need!  And what we don't have!

Direct democracy, as in majority wins, as in one-vote-over-half takes the prize, is the very same thing as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.  Direct democracy means a momentary whim of the people could prove catastrophic, whereas a more reasoned, Representative Republican form of government allows a more cautious and successful effort.  

And that's what we have; a Representative Republic.  We vote for people to go to the city hall, or the county seat, or the state capitol, or to Washington, D.C. to represent us.  We vote for them, they vote for us.  And that's the way it's been since the very beginning.  And the way it should stay.

What does all this have to do with the Electoral College?  The E.C. is formed around the same concept as the House of Representatives; the bigger the state, the more Electors.  Thus, larger states have more clout, but still among themselves, cannot elect anyone to national office.  Rather, only by winning the majority of the E.C. Electors can one grab the brass ring.  And that demands a candidate win a majority of the voters in a majority of states, insuring national campaigning and national support.

Think back to 2016.  Clinton won about 63 million votes.  Trump, only 60 million.  Yet, all of those three extra million votes Clinton earned came from 3 counties in California and 2 in New York.   

Do you want Lost Angelenos and those on the Upper West Side making political decisions for you?

Even so the Democrats cried foul.  They want the E.C.  abolished and the popular vote installed.  Moreover, they're calling for the voting age to be lowered to 16 from the present 18.  And they want Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia to have their votes count as well.  And, oh yeah, they want all felons pardoned and their voting rights restored.  Even crusty old Bernie Sanders (Democrat SOCIALIST-NH) wants felons currently incarcerated to have their votes restored!  

Annnnnd, let us not forget, they wish all, ALL efforts to require identification prior to voting to be eliminated in perpetuity!   

That's because they've lost two national elections in recent memory (Bush 43 and Trump 45), even though they won the popular vote.  And they're pissed about it.  in fact, their new meme is even if they lost, they won, because somebody stole it from them!  Think Stacey Abrams.  She ran for Governor of Georgia, lost by 55,000 votes, and is now claiming she won because the election was stolen from her!

So, they wish to turn our electoral system upside down to make it "fairer," when in fact the opposite would be true.  This all means they're either "A," unschooled in civic matters, as are so many of our citizens these days; or, "B," they are scheming, miserable, underhanded, lying bastards who wish to gain an arm lock on power and never, ever relinquish it.  

And I think it's "B." 

If there were no Electoral College, a candidate for national office would simply choose to campaign where the people are:  California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas.  And perhaps those cities/regions with large Democrat majorities (Chicago, D. C., Seattle, Atlanta, etc.).  Were a candidate to win these states, and a large majority among certain of the others, he would win the Popular Vote, even while being stomped in the Electoral College!  And he/she/it would never have to visit another state! 

No visits to Kansas, or Tennennessessee, or Arizona, or Idaho, or New Hampshire, or Georgia, or Alabama, or Howarya.  Or any of the other 40 states.  They would be frozen out.  And the politicians wouldn't care.  In fact, they would just luuuuuv it!  It would make campaigning so very quick and cheap and easy, they might not even have to change their tee times! 

So when you hear them banging the drum for eradicating the Electoral College, ask yourself this; are they making this demand to further the prospects for freedom and fairness, or are they looking for an unfair - and lasting - advantage?  

Perhaps the unending investigations by the entire Democrat Party into whether the Russians' expenditure of just a bit more than $200,000 (only!) on Facebook ads running up to the 2016 General Election was reason enough to drag this country through a demoralizing, unnecessary, fruitless, agonizing and counter-productive effort to overturn that election's results was righteous.

(Just luuuuv those longish sentences!)

Or maybe it was just a way to hide the fact that they ran the wrong candidate, in the wrong way, for the wrong people.  And lost.  When a politicians calls for a radical remake of the very fabric of our society, it might be worth asking yourself...

                          WHY?