votes that count

 With the ongoing counting of the votes the attention once again is focused upon the electoral college. Joe, like all the others before him needs 270 electoral votes to claim the prize. If you recall when Hillary failed to do so the hue and cries went up, it should be based solely on the popular vote! Even now you hear that Joe has already received more votes than any other President in history. That very well may be the case, we are counting the popular vote after all. And you know what is interesting about that? All but two states require that all electoral votes go to the winner of the States' popular vote. That's correct, read it again. All but two, Maine and Nebraska, require their electors to cast their electoral vote in favor of the winner of the popular vote. 

 Now in the last election cycle an elector from Colorado and Washington refused to do that. They said they couldn't support Hilary Clinton. They were fined a thousand dollars each and the case went to the Supreme court. The issue was, can a state force an elector to vote in a particular fashion? That is to say, they have to vote in accordance with the law of that state. As in, you have to vote for whomever wins the popular vote. The democrats won that case in the court. Clarence Thomas wrote: " where the constitution is silent, authority resides with the states, or the people." That was the majority opinion. Interestingly Justice Kagan, an Obama appointee and former Harvard law professor, in fact the Dean of Harvard Law school, dissented writing, "nothing in the constitution prohibits states from taking away electors voting discretion." What was she saying? Basically her opinion is, if the constitution doesn't say I can't, that means I can. That's the philosophy of the left. Her opinion being the state (government) can take away your choice and force the elector to vote the way they want. Forty eight states have decided that electoral votes must go the way of the popular vote. They have done so for at least a hundred years or so, depending upon what states we are talking about. The constitution leaves that decision to the individual states and in turn, the people through their representatives. It is my opinion that is the best method. If we change that, allowing the electors to decide who they want to vote for, wouldn't that then place the election in their hands? And that, that is exactly what the Democrats want to happen, another opening to the white house. 

 Why would that be? Electoral votes are tied to the census. The more people in an area, the more votes you get. That's the basic premise. Now we are all aware that the large metropolitan areas are traditionally democratically controlled. That leads to more electoral votes for the Democratic party. Remember if you can control the electoral votes, you control the outcome of the election. That can be accomplished by what method? As Kagan pointed out in her opinion, nothing in the constitution prohibits states from taking away the voting discretion from the electors. Most states have laws requiring their electors vote for the candidates they pledged to vote for. It was that law that was challenged. It was that law that was upheld as constitutional by the majority opinion. Kagan disagreed. Basically she was saying, the state can tell the elector who to vote for regardless of the popular vote. Pretty convenient wouldn't you say? Those two electors that said they couldn't vote for Hillary Clinton refused to go along with the popular vote as required by the law of the state. The Democrats sure got upset by that because it was against Clinton. Now, they want to make that optional, you know, at the discretion of the state government. So if you have a Democrat for Governor, the state votes democrat regardless of the popular vote. In that scenario, that's fair.

 It's all a complicated process that is dependent upon the popular vote. The electoral college is a mechanism to ensure an equal playing field for each individual state, not each individual person. We are the "united" states for a reason, our goal is a common one. Equality is the watchword. Equal representation for all. The electoral college provides just that. Justice Thomas said, where the Constitution is silent authority resides with the state or people. We need to keep the electoral college. I also think we need to let the people decide. Should the electors have to vote in accordance with the popular vote, or do those electors have discretion in the way they vote? Currently it is 48 to 2 that they have to vote with the popular vote. I concur with that. I say we write that into the constitution.