Guest Opinion: We Need The Electoral College

Guest Opinion: We Need The Electoral College

Guest Opinion:  We Need The Electoral College

We have all heard the renewed cries to abolish the Electoral College, and most recently this issue has been taken up by former presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren. Several states are even making law to circumvent it: whoever wins the popular vote automatically gets that state’s electoral votes.

The adage “one man, one vote” (or some sort of PC variation that includes multiple “genders”) completely misses the point of the Electoral College. The method of choosing a president by popular vote always ensures that 51% of the people can strong-arm the other 49%. In answer to that, Hamilton, Washington, et al wanted to ensure that each state–no matter the population–was represented in a national election. Our Founding Fathers also knew that power corrupts.  And popularity, in the United States today as it was back then, is power.

The beauty of the United States is that you can live in any state you want without changing national citizenship. You can freely move if one state doesn’t meet your needs or your values. So if you don’t like liberal California with its liberal policies, liberal politicians, and big cities with its crowded conditions, you can move to Wyoming–big skies, lots of open space, few people.

With all that in mind, let me give you a simple illustration. Let’s say you and your friend want to go to a local restaurant. You’ve heard good things about it. The food is good, and the chef is adept at cooking various cuisines.

You and your friend arrive, and the hostess escorts you to a small table for two. She hands you the menu and informs you that the chef won’t be serving any meals until 8:00 p.m. It’s 7:00 so you’re cool with that. You and your friend can order drinks, listen to music, and people-watch.

A group walks in the door, and they are a boisterous bunch. There are 10 of them. They get a large table on the other side of the room. These folks are loud, though they seem like fun.

The next to enter are 6 guys tattooed from head to toe. Covered in chains, piercings all over their faces. They’re kind of scary.

The final group to arrive is comprised of 3 old ladies with walkers and one man in a wheelchair. They hobble their way to a table for 4.

The hostess comes back into the dining room and grabs a microphone. “Ladies and Gentlemen,” she announces. “Welcome to Anything Goes Eatery. With regret, I must inform you that our chef can cook only one meal per table tonight of beef, chicken, or pasta. I’d like each table to decide what that meal will be.”

Of course, the grumblings begin: a few shouts from the boisterous group; some cursing from the pierced group; the old folks keep saying “What?!”; and you and your friend are confused. Why?

The hostess begs forgiveness. “The Chef has had a death in the family, but he wants to make sure you all get something to eat before he leaves.”

Well, okay.  That’s very nice of him.

You and your friend really want pasta tonight so that’s easy.

The old folks need something soft since they all left their teeth at the home. Guess it’s pasta for them, too.

The chain gang want to rip apart a whole chicken with their bare hands, maybe even waiting for it to be slaughtered and cooked first.

The boisterous crowd is having a great time. Several people want their steaks grilled, several want them on a flat top, and two want the beef in a stew. The argue a bit, but eventually the two who want stew realize they aren’t going to have that tonight. Maybe next time. Eventually they all agree they will have grilled steak.

The hostess takes the orders to the chef. She comes back to the dining room looking a bit nervous.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, um, well, the Chef can cook just one meal tonight–and only one–and since the largest group has decided on grilled steak, that is what we will be serving.” She drops the microphone and runs out of the room.

You are dumbfounded! You don’t want steak! You’re a vegetarian. You wanted pasta! Maybe we can get some more friends to join us this evening, you say to your friend, and then we can get pasta. But you look around. Ooops. All the tables are filled. There is NO way you are going to get any more people around your little two-seater table.

At this point, the pierced guys are swinging their chains, one even pulls out a knife, and they charge over to the boisterous table of 10. The pierced guys decided to take out half or more of the boisterous bunch which will ensure THEY are the majority. If they can’t rip apart a chicken, they’ll do it to some people instead.

The old folks still don’t know what’s going on.

And you and your friend make a run for the exit before any blood is shed.

What kind of illustration is this, you might be wondering? So what does Anything Goes Eatery have to do with an election? This restaurant is the United States with the Popular Vote.

The big boisterous table is California. The chain gang is New York. The old folks are Florida. And you and your friend are tiny Rhode Island who have absolutely no way of competing with the population of California and New York.

This is why our Founding Fathers put the Electoral College into place. If Anything Goes Eatery had the Electoral College, the two-seater vegan-pasta lovers would be on a more level playing field with the steak-eaters from the table of 10 and the pierced chicken-rippers from the table of 6.

Would the Electoral College ensure that each table in the restaurant got exactly what they wanted? Unfortunately, no. There are never any guarantees in life. But wouldn’t you rather have a chance at getting your pasta? Or would you rather be bullied into eating steak or physically harmed over chicken?

I know which system I prefer, even if it isn’t perfect. But at least it gives each state a fighting chance. Without the bloodshed.




Editor’s note:  Our guest blogger is Julie Ann Monzi who lives in Gettysburg, PA, with her husband, three adult “kids”, and three cats. Her work has appeared in many publications including “Liguorian”, “Harpstring”, “Catholic Mom”, and “The Secret Place”. She enjoys reading, traveling, watching foreign mysteries, and walking the Gettysburg Battlefield. Julie, her husband, and one daughter participate in Civil War reenacting, an activity that allows them to honor that era’s brave men and women and educate the public that freedom is never free. You can find Julie on Facebook here.


Featured photo is from Pixabay, using a simplified licensing policy.




Written by

  • Cantanker says:

    The thinking about getting rid of the Electoral College seems the same to me as the thinking of taking the vote totally electronic.

    Thankfully we had a few scandals and now most states go with electronic voting with a paper trail. Auditable and verifiable.

    In the case of Electoral College, you can have the most loyal of all party members take the vote into their hands and, if necessary, adjust the vote in the last moments of the election. Viewing each state as its own entity means you don’t have to go looking inside any state to ferret out corruption. Instead you accept the state to be so corrupt as to have all electoral votes go to one candidate. The other states, or our federal government would not do well invading a state and running an inquisition to overturn an election — this would be cause for instability. Better to accept the possibly corrupt and not invade questionable states over the election.

  • Scott says:

    Great post! The only disagreement I’ll have is that the “one person one vote” crowd doesn’t miss the point of the founders (well, maybe some of the morons supporting it do, but not the ones pushing it), it is intentionally sidestepping it, because it prevents them from dong exactly as you describe, and running roughshod over the rest of the country. They are after power plain and simple, and what us peons want, especially those of us that live i “flyover country” doesn’t mean squat to them. They are exactly the tyrants (or would be if given the chance) that the Founders were concerned about.

  • John C. says:

    I would have more (well, not very much, even so) respect for Democrats’ calls for abolishing the Electoral College if they had called for it when a Democrat was President, but they were silent on the subject the entirety of Obama’s terms. Even if they do not intend it, their denigrating the Electoral College when a Republican is President and looks a lot like he will win a second term feels like a cynical political ploy.

  • Pam Halter says:

    Great illustration – easy to understand. Thanks!

  • GWB says:

    I am offended by your metaphor!
    I am definitely not Rhode Island!

  • ken says:

    Many people in the rural areas are annoyed that the population centers are suppressing the rural vote. Yes, get rid of the electoral college and go back to the good old days. The population centers would rule the elections and those beyond would starve the population centers of food and sustenance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
Instagram has returned invalid data.