Why senators who lobby for eliminating the Electoral College should worry

Recently, there has been renewed activism to eliminate the Electoral College.  The argument over its need to exist seems to be almost perennial.  I say almost, because it really gets made only when Democrats lose elections.  The problem is that the arguments they make are specious and their premises fallacious, and senators who support this move undermine their own standing in the Senate.

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.

If we take the USA's population to be about 324 million, we now have a basis for a little simple math.  Let's begin with the value of one senator from the least populated state and use it as our basis for a single vote.  The least populated state is Wyoming.  It has about 580,000 people.  Since there are two senators, we divide by two to get about 290,000 as the base count for one vote for a senator.  So we would say each senator from Wyoming votes with the value of one vote in the Senate, which is also approximately the same for Vermont.  Texas, on the other hand, has more than 28 million residents, so each of its senators would have the vote value of 49 times the value of a vote from Vermont or Wyoming.  A vote by Ted Cruz, for example, would count 49 times that of Bernie Sanders.  Each of N.C.'s senators, my state's Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, would cast about 18 votes each...or 18 times the vote value as Mr. Sanders and almost twice the vote value as Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar.  Oh, wow...and both Dianne Feinstein's and Kamala Harris's votes would count 68 times as much as Mr. Bernie's one little ol' vote.  Even Dick Durbin's vote would count 22 times as much as Bernie's and less than half as much as Ted Cruz's.

The point is simple.  The Electoral College is a brilliant solution for protecting the rights of each state in the Senate while accounting for the differences in population in the House of Representatives.  To abolish it, either literally or effectively through collusion, is to completely change not just the way we vote for the president, but the entire structure of the federal government of the United States of America.

Recently, there has been renewed activism to eliminate the Electoral College.  The argument over its need to exist seems to be almost perennial.  I say almost, because it really gets made only when Democrats lose elections.  The problem is that the arguments they make are specious and their premises fallacious, and senators who support this move undermine their own standing in the Senate.

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.

If we take the USA's population to be about 324 million, we now have a basis for a little simple math.  Let's begin with the value of one senator from the least populated state and use it as our basis for a single vote.  The least populated state is Wyoming.  It has about 580,000 people.  Since there are two senators, we divide by two to get about 290,000 as the base count for one vote for a senator.  So we would say each senator from Wyoming votes with the value of one vote in the Senate, which is also approximately the same for Vermont.  Texas, on the other hand, has more than 28 million residents, so each of its senators would have the vote value of 49 times the value of a vote from Vermont or Wyoming.  A vote by Ted Cruz, for example, would count 49 times that of Bernie Sanders.  Each of N.C.'s senators, my state's Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, would cast about 18 votes each...or 18 times the vote value as Mr. Sanders and almost twice the vote value as Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar.  Oh, wow...and both Dianne Feinstein's and Kamala Harris's votes would count 68 times as much as Mr. Bernie's one little ol' vote.  Even Dick Durbin's vote would count 22 times as much as Bernie's and less than half as much as Ted Cruz's.

The point is simple.  The Electoral College is a brilliant solution for protecting the rights of each state in the Senate while accounting for the differences in population in the House of Representatives.  To abolish it, either literally or effectively through collusion, is to completely change not just the way we vote for the president, but the entire structure of the federal government of the United States of America.