TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The forces of darkness are gathering to strike a blow against liberty, justice, the American way, and…and…THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

The Electoral college?

Yes, it’s true. Not content to emasculate the American military, Kerry lickspittles have now set their sights on stripping America of one of its oldest and most cherished institutions. Now, gentle reader, before you scratch your head and ask the obvious question of WHO THE F**K CARES…perhaps a little history lesson is in order. And who better to give it than I, Professor Superhawk, BFA, MS, and VAH (Very Amateur Historian).

WHAT IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE (AND DO THEY HAVE A FOOTBAL TEAM)?

I’ll take the second question first, Alex. Not that I’m aware of although I understand they’ve had some pretty wild keggers over the last 212 years. And starting in 1920 when the college went co-ed, panty raids became a huge problem.

Notwithstanding such juvenile shennanigans, the Electoral College is a product of one of the more divisive debates that took place during the constitutional convention. For a very educational and thorough examination of this history, I recommend you go here since I’ll be dealing with only the bare bones of what the institution is all about.

The College consists of electors, chosen by the states in various ways, that (ideally) reflect the outcome of the popular vote in that particular state. The number of electors is what’s important; that number is determined by how many Senators(2) and Congressmen (proportionally awarded based on most recent census) the state has. So Pennsylvania has 21 electoral votes because they have 2 Senators and…how many Congressmen? Class?...CLASS? WAAAAAKE UUUUP! . Thank you. Nineteen Congressmen is the correct answer. The kicker is that it’s a winner take all competition…whoever wins the popular vote gets all the electors from that state.

ISN’T THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE KIND OF ARCHAIC?

Depends what you mean by archaic. Given that Kerry as voted against every major weapons system currently in use by the military (an exaggeration, but hey! We don’t call this the RIGHTWINGnuthouse because we’re impartial!), perhaps he wants us to fight terrorism using bows and arrows…or spears. Do you mean archaic in THAT sense? The answer is no. And like my sainted father used to say “Old things are best.” Many of the reasons for the electoral college are still valid today.

Look at the election of 2000. Algore would have been President if he had carried one more state. That would have given him a grand total of 18 states voting Democratic. George Bush would have won 32 states and gotten nothing, nada, zip-i-dee-doo-da. This is exactly what the electoral college was set up to prevent. Al Gore, if he had won Florida, would have captured 8 of the 10 largest states and won the election by appealing largely to both urban and coastal constituencies. George Bush demonstrated broader support in the electoral college appealing to states in the north, south, east, and west. Bush, even though narrowly losing the popular vote, proved himself a much more national candidate.

Now, there are voices of dissent who maintain we no longer vote for regional candidates and that direct popular election is the only fair way in a democracy to choose a President. Not so fast my kool-aid drinking, tin foil hat wearing monkey brained moonbats! Consider below…

WHAT WOULD BE THE PROBLEM WITH DIRECT ELECTIONS FOR PRESIDENT?

If we were to simply go by the popular vote to decide who’s elected President, 3 major alterations would occur that would permanently change the landscape of our political culture.

1. Democratic candidates would concentrate on big states in their campaigns. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, that candidate would move to California, set up residence, and shake 40 million hands over a two year period. An exaggeration, but a politician who already lived in California…say a Governor or Senator…would have an enormous advantage in any race for the Presidency. If such a candidate could run up a huge majority in California the task of getting 50.1% of the vote would become much easier.

2. Minorities would become marginalized. If you think candidates ignore the concerns of minorities now, you’ll love direct elections for President. More than ever, Democrats would take the minority vote for granted and Republicans would continue their half-hearted attempts at outreach. the rationale being, why spend time and money preaching to (or begging from)) the converted?

3. Small states and rural areas would be slighted. Would a campaign that never visited Bucktooth PA or Watchoutforthatcroc FL be any fun at all? I doubt it. I think that we’d lose something if Presidential candidates only visited big states and big state TV markets. Somehow, watching a candidate interact with these simple folk gives you a handle on what kind of person they are, hence what kind of leader they’d make.

WILL WE TOSS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ANY TIME SOON?

Not as long as the current political party situation remains unchanged. Republicans would be at enormous logistical disadvantage under such a system. Think of it like a war. Republicans have a lot more territory to defend than Democrats and thus, their resources would be stretched much thinner. To get to the magic number of 50.1%, Democrats would be able to expend a lot less energy and money to defend their own turf thus freeing them up to raid Republican strongholds. Republicans would have to fight off Democratic insurgencies in red states while carrying on an expensive battle in blue states to pick off a few voters here and there.

No wonder this idea is so popular with the moonbats.