It's Democrats Who Overwhelmingly Hate The Electoral College

The reason Democrats hate the Electoral College is that the Electoral College gives too much power to small population states, which sometimes vote in such a way as to prevent winners of the national popular vote in presidential contests from being elected.

Nevermind that that's how the founders intended it, in order to keep minorities from being dictated to by majorities. It is suitably hypocritical of the Democrats to want to oppress minorities, seeing how they have taken minorities for granted for decades, always promising them the moon but never delivering them so much as a sandwich let alone a sub so fast they'll freak.

TheHill.com has a story here on the subject of the Electoral College, referencing the National Popular Vote (NPV) campaign which proposes to make an end-run around the Electoral College provision of the constitution. You know, kind of like seceding from the Union was an end run, because that's what the NPV amounts to. The normal process of amending election procedures involves a constitutional amendment, but the Democrats have hatched a plan, the NPV, which amounts to an affront and challenge to the existing system, agreed to only amongst the states participating without benefit of legitimacy conferred by constitutional amendment. The legitimacy consists entirely in the agreement of the states. As such the NPV represents an insurrection against the rest of the states who do not participate. 

Mostly Democrats favor doing away with the Electoral College, which is in keeping with what animates the Democrats, namely democracy, especially direct democracy. Despite all its problems and blemishes, it is the Republican Party which stands for constitutional arrangements as they exist, notably Sen. Mitch McConnell of the US Senate, the Republican minority leader in the Senate. His support for the Electoral College covers a multitude of sins, and I do mean a multitude.

The Republicans would sound more convincing in their support for the Electoral College, however, if they were to support also repeal of Amendment 17, ratified in 1913.

The reason is that it would show that the Republicans are serious about constitutional principles of representation.

The original constitution envisaged bodies of electors who were different in identity in order to separate the powers of government to prevent tyranny, it is true, but also to spread representation effectively not just to the individuals who make up the nation but also to the governmental institutions which the constitution created as creatures of the people.

The electors originally were three.

The people who elected their US Representatives. These number 435 but should today number 10,267. The process of representation growing with population was halted in the 1920s. Arguably this concentration of power in fewer hands was a response to arrogation of democratic power by the Senate in 1913.

The states originally elected their US Senators, "chosen by the Legislature[s] thereof". Elected as they are now, popularly because of the 17th Amendment, they do nothing but make a redundancy of the US House of Representatives. And not just a redundancy but a trump. The Senate possesses much more power because they are not answerable to the people but every sixth year instead of every second. If anyone is responsible for gridlock in our times, it is this new imperious US Senate since 1913, not the political parties who duke it out in the House. The US Senate literally lords it over the US House as a kind of Super House. They only occasionally answer to the same people as the US House when they should be answering to, and representing, the states. The latter now possess next to no voice at the federal level except through the court system, where they must sue to be heard. A fine kettle of fish, that.

The Electoral College is now the last bastion of representation left to the states as states, and Democrats seem bent on taking it. The Electoral College is composed of persons appointed by the states in number equal to the number of Representatives and Senators, and they elect the president. The electors cast their votes now more or less everywhere based on which candidate wins the popular vote in the presidential election in each state. It is a winner take all system which blends popular sovereignty with states' rights. But the NPV would nullify this, casting the votes of the electors not for whomever wins the state, but for whomever wins the country.

As sketched above, the history of these developments is a history of lost representation. A US House member should represent 30,000 people max, but today supposedly speaks for over 700,000 on average in each district. State legislatures no longer have a voice in the halls of Congress because Senators are popularly elected just like the House. And if the Democrats get their way, smaller states will also lose their voice in electing the president because no matter what the citizens of Wyoming, New Hampshire and Montana want, the citizens of California, Florida and New York who are more numerous will dictate otherwise.

And Democrats are about nothing if not dictation. 

Bob Brinker Of "Money Talk" Is Wrong: GDP Isn't Growing At An Average Of 1.75 Percent

On his radio program "Money Talk" yesterday Bob Brinker sought to defend recent economic performance as better than the Q2 report of 1.5 percent makes it appear. He accomplished this feat by averaging that number 1.5 with the 2.0 percent reported in Q1, coming up with a little better number, 1.75 percent.

This is wrong and I stated so in a post I have since removed.

I thought Bob Brinker said this for political reasons in the context of the remarks, and in a fit of pique I posted that Bob Brinker is a shill for the Obama regime in doing this, remembering as I am wont that Bob Brinker has stated on the program, among other things that hint of leaning to the Democrats despite calling himself an independent, that Obama's man in the US Senate, Dirty Harry Reid, is "a good man, a good man." Harry Reid is manifestly not a good man, recently using the well of the Senate to innoculate himself for potentially libelous remarks he has made from there against Mitt Romney, a fellow Mormon to Reid no less. Harry Reid has also been the chief instrument of gridlock on Capitol Hill, both now and when Pelosi was Speaker of the House. Just ask her how many bills she sent to him which never received action.

I've removed that post because I think it's possible Bob Brinker made the comments entirely out of ignorance, not from political bias. The reason is that I've realized that I've made the exact same mistake about GDP myself on this very blog, and my bias against Obama didn't keep me from making it. I actually forgot about those errors long after I had improved my understanding of GDP. So even if Bob Brinker did make the statements in order to put Obama's performance in the best possible light, it's also possible Bob Brinker just isn't as smart about GDP as he thinks he is. After all, it is a complicated subject about which very few people really are expert, and if I can make an honest mistake about it, so can he.

So the politics aside, it is impermissible to take the sum of quarterly headline GDP and divide by 2 or 3 or 4 to get an average rate. Each quarterly statement of GDP is already stating the annual rate, that is, the annual rate prevailing during the quarter. That's what the meaning of annualized is. As the quarters roll and the data become more full and complete, the numbers are routinely refined, even many years after we learn of the third and final estimate of quarterly GDP for month x, y or z. GDP is always a work in progress, and even somewhat controversial among the truly expert.

So in the second quarter, the annualized rate of GDP growth is 1.5 percent, not 2 percent, and not 1.75 percent. And that is terrible for everyone, Democrat, Republican and independent alike, because we are all in this together.

At least that is what we would like to think.

Gridlock Is Ordinarily The Most Moral Form Of Government

So David Harsanyi, here.

Mike Shedlock's Political Whopper of the Day: Republicans Hold The Senate

Here's today's political whopper from Mike Shedlock, aka Mish:

"I expect Republicans to hold the Senate, and probably the House regardless of who wins the 2012 presidential sweepstakes."

Excuse me, but to hold the Senate, you have to win it first.

He writes as if he doesn't know that Democrats, not Republicans, currently hold the Senate, and that they stymie every bill coming out of the US House of Representatives, which the Republicans won and currently hold. He complains of gridlock, but doesn't seem to grasp the political reality which is causing it:

"Sadly, a divided do-nothing electorate is the best outcome one can reasonably expect at the moment."

This is an embarrassingly stupid choice of words, unless we the people who elect our representatives and senators are really the do-nothings. Use your dictionary app, Mish.

It's also an especially stupid thing to say since he just said he expects Republicans to have majorities in both House and Senate, in which case a President Obama would be isolated politically, unlike now. Control of the Senate still gives Obama leverage, whereas Republican control of the House since 2010 has taken away his free hand. A politically isolated Obama would represent progress over what we have now, especially if a Republican Congress has enough votes to override his veto.

Mish's ignorance is appalling, and embarrassing. But it's also fairly typical, which is why we have the government we currently have.

Sen. John McCain, Who Approved 'A Tale of Two Mitts' Then, Now Endorses Gov. Romney

“It’s with some nostalgia that I return to this place that I love so well. I’m really here for one reason and one reason only and that is to make sure we make Mitt Romney the next president of the United States of America. And New Hampshire, and New Hampshire is the state that will catapult him onto victory in a very short period of time. That’s why I’m here.”

See the video here.

I don't know what's worse, Mitt Romney's flip flops or John McCain's.

Here's a recounting of 61 of the latter's, and that's just through June 2008. In the 2010 Arizona Republican primary, it cost McCain $21 million to convince Arizona's Republicans to vote for him again, flip-flopping even more all the way if that were possible, as recounted here:

Moving sharply to the Right, the senator supported the controversial new immigration law in his home state that opponents said would discriminate against legal residents of Hispanic descent.

The move was in contrast to failed legislation he had drafted in 2006 that would have provided a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants and had dismissed the effectiveness of building a fence on the US-Mexico border. This year he filmed an advertisement with a border sheriff which delivered a message to the federal government of: “Complete the danged fence.”

In a further bid to please the party’s Right-wingers, who tend to vote in party primaries, the senator also reversed his support for a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuals in the military. He then distanced himself from a measure to cap carbon emissions that he had been developing with Sen Joe Lieberman, an independent Democrat.

“What McCain did was recognise he had a real race to run and move to the right,” said Martin Frost, a commentator who was formerly a Democratic congressman in Texas.


Americans have the lowest opinion ever of the US Congress not because of gridlock, partisan bickering, or even its fantastic personal wealth, but because of the utter faithlessness of the men and women who populate it.

And people don't like to be reminded too much how these chameleons represent them all too well.

Alas, we have the government we deserve. 

'Gridlock is the Most Constructive and Moral Form of Government'

Except "with entitlement programs on autopilot."

So says David Harsanyi here. The only truly sane thing I read today, or most days.

You've got to like a guy who starts off with an HL Mencken line like "every decent man is ashamed of his government." I'm feeling especially decent today.

What we really need to fear most is one party, it doesn't matter which one, in complete control of the government. And that we don't exactly have that today means I can be grateful with a straightface tomorrow, Thanksgiving 2011.

Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer Blames Gridlock on Voters Last November

Here:

“The American people have every right to be angry [and] disappointed by the performance of the Congress.

“Of course, the American people have also elected people with hard stances, so that to some degree the American people are realizing the results of their votes.

“If elections have consequences — which I think they do — some of those consequences are getting what you vote for.

 “In this case, many people voted for people who thought compromise was not something that they ought to participate in.”

Firm grasp of the obvious there, Steny. We voted to stop you and prefer things this way to the alternative.

But there was plenty of gridlock before we stopped you, too. When Democrats ruled the roost in 2010, unactioned bills in the Democrat-controlled Senate sent to it by the Democrat-controlled House went from 290 at the beginning of 2010 to 420 a month before the November elections.

For that kind of impotence there is no pill.

The Scope of Democrat Gridlock Continues to Grow

The Democrat Party has controlled both the US House and Senate since the 2006 midterm elections, but 420 bills passed by the current House elected in 2008 continue to languish unactioned by the Senate, which the Democrats presently control with an effective majority of 59 seats (which includes two independents) vs. 41 seats held by Republicans.

In February the number of unactioned bills had stood at 290. During the summer it climbed to 372.

Isn't there a pill for impotence?

TheHill.com has the story here.

Gridlock, Despite Democrat Control of Everything!

No budget, no tax bill, no jobs, no more!

George Will, National Treasure, Font of American Wisdom

Some excerpts from his address to The CATO Institute in May:

We are not Europeans. We are not, in Orwell's phrase, a "state-broken people."

It is a principle of liberal social legislation that a program for the poor is a poor program.

[D]ependency is the agenda of the other side.

I believe that today, as has been the case for 100 years, and as will be the case for the foreseeable future, the American political argument is an argument between two Princetonians: James Madison of the class of 1771, and Thomas Woodrow Wilson of the class of 1879.

The very virtue of a constitution is that it's not changeable. It exists to prevent change, to embed certain rights so that they cannot easily be taken away.

Madison said rights pre-exist government. Wilson said government exists to dispense whatever agenda of rights suits its fancy, and to annihilate, regulate, attenuate, or dilute others.

We are going to come to a time when America is going to have to revisit Madison's Federalist Paper no. 45, and his statement, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

Gridlock is not an American problem, it is an American achievement!

[W]e always have more to fear from government speed than government tardiness.

We are told that one must not be a "Party of No." To "No," I say an emphatic "Yes!"

[T]he most beautiful five words in the English language are the first five words of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law."

The Bill of Rights is a litany of "No's."

The American people are, I think, healthier than they are given credit for. They have only one defect. They have nothing to fear, right now, but an insufficiency of their fear itself. It is time for a wholesome fear of what people with a dependency agenda are trying to do. We have few allies. We don't have Hollywood, we don't have academia, and we don't have the mainstream media. But we have two things. First, we have arithmetic. The numbers do not add up, and cannot be made to do so. Second, we have the Cato Institute. The people in this room are what the Keynesians call "a multiplier." And, for once, they are right!

Don't miss the rest at the link!

DIVIDED GOVERNMENT IS A SOLUTION, NOT A PROBLEM

A new kind of check and balance, in the opinion of Ronald Brownstein, writing for National Journal Magazine:

"To the Constitution's enumerated checks and balances we have informally added our own by habitually dividing power between the parties. . . . The public's default switch may have flipped from centralizing authority in one party to fragmenting it."

Read the whole piece, here.

Ideologues Never Prosper

Steve Huntley of The Chicago Sun Times has a firm grasp on reality. It would be nice if Obama and the Democrat left did, he thinks, not appreciating well enough himself that "compromise" is not in the ideologue's lexicon, and never can be, which is the real problem. Obama just doesn't belong in The White House. As of tonight, 52% would seem to agree. Here's an excerpt:

Here is the real story about the current gridlock in Washington -- no willingness to compromise by Democrats. The Senate is not broken; it is performing a function the Founders intended -- subjecting the enthusiasms of the House to careful scrutiny. And the filibuster is serving its purpose of protecting the rights of the minority in Congress. Together they can help force compromise and bipartisanship. Republicans had to turn to the filibuster because Democratic leaders in Congress shut them out of sweeping legislation such as the health-care bill.

Even so, the GOP-party-of-no excuse for inaction is largely bogus. Until last month, Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate to go with their House super-majority. They couldn't accomplish anything because they couldn't get moderate Democrats to sign on to the liberal program.

Left-wing Democrats saw the 2008 election of President Obama as a mandate for transformative change. In reality voters were rejecting Bush and turning to Obama to address the nation's economic crisis. Instead, taking Rahm Emanuel's famous advice, liberals saw the crisis as an opportunity to advance a big-government, big-spending agenda.

The voters rebelled. The Tea Party movement sprang up like a spring flower and blossomed. Poll numbers for Obama and health-care overhaul sank. Republicans scored big wins in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts. What would have been unthinkable a few months ago -- a return to GOP control of the House -- now seems possible. Democrats are putting their fingers to the wind and seeing trouble ahead -- with Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana the latest to forgo re-election.

Yet Democratic leaders still don't seem to get the message.

Click here for the rest.