Why senators who lobby for eliminating the Electoral College should worry

[Right_in_Virginia]

Why senators who lobby for eliminating the Electoral College should worry
American Thinker, Jun 16, 2019, Phil D'Agostino

[...]

If the Electoral College were to be abolished, either through Democrat collusion among certain states or a constitutional amendment (which would never happen), this would effectively put an end to federalism.  There would no longer be a logical need for or a way to protect the interests of any state.  The point of a state governor or legislature would seem archaic and a throwback to the founding.  States themselves would be mere markings on the map, while large metropolitan areas would become the new centers of power, with a handful of mayors becoming the new American lords.  These metropolitan areas would then likely compete for power and create coalitions, further dividing the USA into city-states like Italy of the 1700s.

Some have a problem understanding that we are not only not a democracy, but not really a republic, either...not for the people.  Our republicanism rests with the idea of representing the states and the people.  Treaties are approved by the states through their representatives in the Senate, for example.  Presidents, who preside over the corporation or federation of states, are not elected by the people; they are elected by the states.  The size of each state's population is part of the calculation, but it's the state that is electing the president, not the people at large.

"But that was then.  Today, we are a democracy, and the people should speak louder than the states, and so the 'popular vote' should count more!"  If we were to do just a bit of mind-bending and apply this across the board to all the nooks and crannies of our government, it would then certainly apply to the Senate, for it, too, doesn't represent the people as it is structured now.  It represents the states.  So, applying that same concept to the voting value of any one senator versus another, it seems that a senator from a large state like California or Texas would certainly have more to say about an issue than a senator from say, Vermont.

If we use the same argument that the vapid empty suits and would-be presidents use to press their case, we would want to be sure that the 100 senators' votes would represent the popular vote.  I suggest the following.

More:  https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/why_senators_who_lobby_for_eliminating_the_electoral_college_should_worry.html

[jafo2010]

The founding fathers had many things right.  The Electoral College works.  Leave it alone.

They also established the right to vote tied to being land owners.  Why should people on the dole(and I am not including SOcial Security) have the right to vote?  Makes no sense.  Folks that pay zero taxes have no vested interest, and should not have the right to vote.  We went off the rails into the weeds when we opened voting to all.  I think the land ownership notion was sound, and I believe it would motivate folks to being productive members of society versus leeches upon society.  We have too many of the latter these days!

Listening to AOC talk about working with Ted Cruz...uggh!

[Bill Cipher]

The founding fathers had many things right.  The Electoral College works.  Leave it alone.

They also established the right to vote tied to being land owners.  Why should people on the dole(and I am not including SOcial Security) have the right to vote?  Makes no sense.  Folks that pay zero taxes have no vested interest, and should not have the right to vote.  We went off the rails into the weeds when we opened voting to all.  I think the land ownership notion was sound, and I believe it would motivate folks to being productive members of society versus leeches upon society.  We have too many of the latter these days!

Listening to AOC talk about working with Ted Cruz...uggh!

Why are you equating not owning a lump of dirt with not paying taxes?

[Cyber Liberty]

The leftists are already complaining that Wyoming's voice in the Senate carries the same weight as California's.

[Fishrrman]

The author writes:
"There would no longer be a logical need for or a way to protect the interests of any state..."

... in which I assume he is contending that current-day Senators actually do that.

But... they do not. The 17th Amendment saw to that.

The only "interests" that today's Senators "protect"... are their own.