Len Robbins laid out an argument against the Electoral College. Here’s an explanation for Mr. Robbins:
The “electors” were originally designated to pick the president based on a state’s primary “popular” vote (every vote counts). The basis of the “electors” being assigned based off the representatives from the states remains a valid need. Why? We are not a democracy. Our government was never designed that way intentionally. Democracy by definition is no better than mob rule. The Founders understood that. The founding documents show no reference to democracy. We are an elected republic ruled by law and not by the majority rule.
When the “electors” were assigned by the states, the “original” intent was to allow national primaries for the people to have a voice, but it was never meant to let the people vote in a national general election for our president. The “electors” were to take the primary votes from their states and go to D.C. and choose the president for the people based on the primary votes. The “electors” are our voices.
If we changed this system, then mob rule is what we would have for an electoral system. Example: Horse and cattle thieves were hanged at one point. Why? It was “popular” to do so.
The ranchers over-reacted to the thefts and demanded that justices enact this because the ranchers were “rich” and lined the justices’ pockets in order to get their way.
Who’s to say that if we enact a “popular” vote the politicians or rich supporters won’t line the pockets of the people? That system of voting based on “what can I get out of it” will corrupt our entire electoral process and crash our government.
Mr. Robbins can “scream” all he wants, but in the end if you allow popular vote to happen you will see corruption spike at huge levels.
Since our elected leaders took an oath to abide and protect the covenants of the Constitution it would stand counter to everything this country was based upon.
Kirk A. Harrington