Every week brings new evidence that the left still hasn’t gotten over the 2016 election. They just can’t accept the fact that they lost. And they keep coming up with bizarre excuses to explain it to themselves.
In the latest example, a new column in Politico magazine claims that the Electoral College is a national security threat.
These people are insane:
The Electoral College Is a National Security Threat
In Federalist No. 68, his pseudonymous essay on “The Mode of Electing the President,” Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Electoral College could shield the United States “from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” Because of the “transient existence” and dispersed makeup of the electors, he argued, hostile countries would find it too expensive and time-consuming to inject “sinister bias” into the process of choosing a president. At the time, the new American leaders feared meddling from Great Britain, their former colonial master, or perhaps from other powers such as France, and they designed a system to minimize the prospect that Europe’s aging monarchies could seize control of their young democracy.
Hamilton and his colleagues never could have envisioned a year like 2016, when an enemy state—Russia—was able to manipulate America’s election process with stunning effectiveness. But it’s clear the national security rationale for the Electoral College is outdated and therefore it should be retired. Simply put, it enables foreign powers to more easily pierce the very shield Hamilton imagined it would be…
But what if the national popular vote determined the president instead of the Electoral College? No voter would be more electorally powerful than another.
That last statement is patently false. If we based our election on the popular vote, states like California and New York would decide every contest. Candidates wouldn’t even bother campaigning in large parts of the country.
Our founding fathers were geniuses for coming up with this system.