Kirsten Gillibrand Issues Crazy Demand: End Electoral College To 'Restore' Democracy
Does Kirsten Gillibrand not know that the Electoral College is part of the Constitution? Or is she trying to deceive everyone?
That’s the question raised by a tweet from the New York senator and 2020 presidential contender after a tweet earlier this week regarding yet another plan to scrap it.
According to The Daily Beast, Hawaii Democrat Sen. Brian Schatz became the latest to enter the fray in the frenzied scrum to do away with how we elect the president by introducing an amendment that would abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a national popular vote.
Now, the amendment has zero chance of passing and primarily has the goal, one guesses, of raising the profile of Brian Schatz.
However, unlike the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact — which seeks to do an end-run around the Constitution by pledging participating states’ electors to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote, no matter who wins the state itself — at least Schatz’s proposal tries to change the Electoral College in the proper manner.
Of course, it’s questionable whether Kirsten Gillibrand knows the Electoral College is in the Constitution in the first place. Or at least, she doesn’t want to give people that impression.
This was her tweet about Schatz’s legislation.
Our democracy is built on the principle of one person, one vote. It can’t function until we restore that principle. It’s time to abolish the Electoral College. https://t.co/TACwKfAZBN
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) April 1, 2019
One Twitter user noticed what we were all thinking:
“Restore”?? What in the hell are you talking about? It’s in the constitution. https://t.co/gP3YMDaEdo
— Matt Murphy (@mattmurphyshow) April 2, 2019
Exactly.
A national popular vote wouldn’t “restore” anything. What it would do is change how our president has been elected for more than two centuries, a system that has managed to balance regional interests and popular enthusiasm for a candidate.
But doesn’t “one person, one vote” sound like a good thing, even if our republic wasn’t built on it? That’s not actually what this advocating. You still are one person who, if you are legally able to cast a ballot, has one vote. This wouldn’t be restoring that. It wouldn’t be restoring anything, but especially not that.
What it would be doing, instead, is setting up a system in which presidential candidates would spend all their time trying to court voters in 10 to 12 major population centers and leave the rest of America alone. If you think the current system of campaigning primarily in “swing states” is problematic, what would you call that?
At least our current swing states are scattered across America and represent a cross-section of the country. The largest cities generally don’t.
Furthermore, the only reason they’re talking about “restoring” this principle is because Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College but won the popular vote. She also had twice as much money as the man she was competing against and had a media that fawned over her
Trump won the only way he could — a smart deployment of resources and putting Midwest states into play.
If anything, given the history of states like Wisconsin and Michigan in presidential elections, it’s arguable that Trump would have had an easier time winning the popular vote. The point is that Clinton lost under the rules of the game.
But never mind all that.
Gillibrand is running for the highest office in the land and will, absent some major change in the next 18 months, have to win the Electoral College to get to the White House. Yet, she either doesn’t realize that the Electoral College is part of our Constitution and the legacy of the Founders, or she doesn’t want her constituents and supporters to know that.
My money’s heavily on the latter; Gillibrand is hardly an idiot and has what one assumes is a passing familiarity with the Constitution (as well as what plays well with the Democratic base). However, it ranks as one of the more ridiculous statements we’ve seen from a Democrat challenger, and that’s saying something.
You can’t “restore” something that never existed in the first place.
Our president has always — and will continue to be, at least for the near future — been elected via the Electoral College. “Restoring” unalloyed democracy isn’t restoration at all. It’s never existed in this country, and Gillibrand ought to know better.
Again, she’s either woefully ignorant or willingly trying to deceive voters. Neither is a good sign.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
