Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Uhlmann to the Rescue

Subscribe to 3 Whisky Happy HourSubscribe

If Trump wins the electoral college again on Tuesday while losing the popular vote (perhaps by a bigger margin than he did in 2016), the left will lose its mind. Well that's a given, but they'll really lose their mind about the electoral college. After hoisting a couple of toasts to the passing of Sean Connery and a second sour whisky shot for Britain going back on COVID lockdown, "Lucretia" and I get down to business reviewing the republican case for the electoral college, and why it is a great institution that makes our political system better. Far from being an archaic relic, it is more necessary than ever in a country that the left calls "diverse" but which it actually views through perverse homogeneous lenses.

Michael Uhlmann

In particular we recall the excellent defense of the electoral college from the late Michael Uhlmann, and end with the story of how, as a young Senate staffer in 1970, Uhlmann almost singlehandedly derailed a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college that had lots of momentum to pass (a story you can read about in detail here). As Mike ended his famous brief, “Let us, if need be, repair it; but let us not abandon it for the sake of a mathematical abstraction, or because we are angry that the world is not perfect.”

Perfect advice for our present moment. By the way, Mike was a man who enjoyed more than his fair share of whisky, and, as we recall at the very end of today's overlong episode, was resolutely against immanentizing the eschaton, which abolishing the electoral college would surely hasten.

Host:
Steve Hayward
Guest:
"Lucretia"

Discussion (7)

  • OccupantCDN@OccupantCDN
    Edited

    The Popular vote compact should be discarded because its unconstitutional, it disenfranchises the population of the state. Could you imagine how angry a state would be, if they voted for one party - and another party won the popular vote? IF you were to reform the electoral college I think the best reform possible, would be to grant electoral votes based on congressional district. Contrary to what was said in the podcast - I think the media establishment would find this very valuable. Using the example of California, with its 55 electoral votes, is the most valuable state in the union - but because its practically a single party dictatorship, it gets very little campaign spending. If they granted their electoral votes by congressional district - and republicans think they can get 10 - 15 of them, wouldnt they spend money in California? Even if they dont win the state, California would be just as valuable to them as Ohio or Michigan. Democrats would feel the same way about Texas, they're unlikely to win the state - but if they campaigned there - they could steal a dozen electoral votes from the republicans.

    The media should be all for this - as it turns all the larger states into battleground states, meaning that local affiliates and media get more campaign spending.

  • Taras@Taras
    ReplyingtoOccupantCDN

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    The Popular vote compact should be discarded because its unconstitutional, it disenfranchises the population of the state. Could you imagine how angry a state would be, if they voted for one party – and another party won the popular vote? IF you were to reform the electoral college I think the best reform possible, would be to grant electoral votes based on congressional district. Contrary to what was said in the podcast – I think the media establishment would find this very valuable. Using the example of California, with its 55 electoral votes, is the most valuable state in the union – but because its practically a single party dictatorship, it gets very little campaign spending. If they granted their electoral votes by congressional district – and republicans think they can get 10 – 15 of them, wouldnt they spend money in California? Even if they dont win the state, California would be just as valuable to them as Ohio or Michigan. Democrats would feel the same way about Texas, they’re unlikely to win the state – but if they campaigned there – they could steal a dozen electoral votes from the republicans.

    The media should be all for this – as it turns all the larger states into battleground states, meaning that local affiliates and media get more campaign spending.

    “The best reform possible, would be to grant electoral votes based on congressional district.”

    Danger, danger, Will Robinson! This would mean that, for the first time, not just the House but Presidential elections would be subject to gerrymandering.

  • OccupantCDN@OccupantCDN
    ReplyingtoTaras

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    The Popular vote compact should be discarded because its unconstitutional, it disenfranchises the population of the state. Could you imagine how angry a state would be, if they voted for one party – and another party won the popular vote? IF you were to reform the electoral college I think the best reform possible, would be to grant electoral votes based on congressional district. Contrary to what was said in the podcast – I think the media establishment would find this very valuable. Using the example of California, with its 55 electoral votes, is the most valuable state in the union – but because its practically a single party dictatorship, it gets very little campaign spending. If they granted their electoral votes by congressional district – and republicans think they can get 10 – 15 of them, wouldnt they spend money in California? Even if they dont win the state, California would be just as valuable to them as Ohio or Michigan. Democrats would feel the same way about Texas, they’re unlikely to win the state – but if they campaigned there – they could steal a dozen electoral votes from the republicans.

    The media should be all for this – as it turns all the larger states into battleground states, meaning that local affiliates and media get more campaign spending.

    Taras (View Comment):

    “The best reform possible, would be to grant electoral votes based on congressional district.”

    Danger, danger, Will Robinson! This would mean that, for the first time, not just the House but Presidential elections would be subject to gerrymandering.

    Yes, that's a good point.

  • Taras@Taras

    The 1960 Presidential election in Alabama:

    Probably the fairest way to allocate the votes ... is to add up the ballots cast for the 11 Democratic electors, and then allocate six elevenths of the total to Byrd and five elevenths to Kennedy. This reflects the reality of the state’s Democratic Party: It was split between national party loyalists and Dixiecrats.

    Adopting this approach results in a Nixon victory of around 60,000 votes, which is how Congressional Quarterly originally calculated the results.

    realclearpolitics.com

    Open link

Scroll for later comments
+2 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of seven comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.