The January 6 Committee Dropped the Ball When It Failed to Call for Abolition of the Electoral College - By John Nichols

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The Narrative apparently has changed back to the Electoral College. This must be the new talking point sent out from Central Command to the minions on the Left. Mr. Nichols dutifully pumps out yet another article in service to the Narrative. 

Mr. Nichol's purpose is not to inform, explain, or clarify. He's not intending to impart information or understanding. This is not even written to contribute to the debate. He marches in lock-step with other leftist agitprop generators to supply the day's bumper sticker slogans.

He is simply bolstering The Narrative in order to further The Agenda. The Narrative is the Leftist talking points of the day, the factoids and topics that always appear simultaneously all over the media landscape, designed as a barrage to overcome the reader's intellect so as to facilitate The Agenda. The Agenda is the elimination of the current system to install Marxism. 

One would think that simply spouting random sentences pulled from various leftist websites would be relatively easy. Regurgitating a couple of leftist factoids shouldn't be much of a challenge, either. After all, a superficial correlation of otherwise unrelated events is what these minions do. But though the central point of Mr. Nichol's article is to establish that the Electoral College caused the supposed insurrection, he doesn't even discuss this. All he does is state it as if it were true and move on. Astonishing. 

We should also note that he is engaging in Mountain Man's Law, which is: "Everything a Leftist Democrat accuses someone of doing is actually being done by Leftist Democrats."

----------------

Abolishing the Electoral College could eliminate future threats to American democracy and ensure that future elections are decided by the popular will of the people.

The coup attempt that Donald Trump facilitated on January 6, 2021, (There was no coup attempt.)

was rooted in two threats to the fair functioning of democracy in the United States: Trump’s refusal to accept his defeat at the hands of the American electorate, (Al Gore in 2000, Hillary Clinton in 2016, and John Jerry in 2004 all refused to accept defeat. As well as Stacey Abrams in 2018 for governor.  

Mike Dukakis was the last Democratic presidential nominee to actually concede on election night.)

and the arcane mechanisms of the Electoral College that provide sore losers with multiple avenues for contesting election results. (This is false. Elections are contested because the Left cannot believe that voters would reject them. If they lose, it's voter suppression, the Republican candidate lied, and/or the leftist message didn't get out. It's never because the Republican won.

And by the way, various local and state elections, which do not have the Electoral College, are frequently contested. So the problem isn't the Electoral College.)

The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol addressed the first threat when it referred charges against Trump to the US Department of Justice. But the committee’s refusal to reckon with the second threat—that of the Electoral College—was a serious misstep in its quest to assure that the scenario that played out on January 6 “can never happen again.” (If only there was the resolve to ensure it "can never happen again" when the 2020 rioters stormed government buildings, took over entire city blocks, and burned down businesses. 

The list of government buildings occupied or attacked or protested by the Left is actually quite long, but no one seemed to have a problem with any of it until Republicans started doing it.)

In its final hearing on December 19, the committee focused on the actions of a dishonest individual, Trump, and his malignant coconspirators. That was understandable, as Trump’s ongoing refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election demands accountability. (Really? What about

• Hamilton/Burr/Jefferson, 1800. 
• Jackson/Adams/Rutherford/Clay, 1824. 
• Lincoln/Bell/Douglas, 1860. 
• Hayes/Tilden, 1876. 
• Roosevelt/Taft/Wilson, 1912. Truman/Dewey, 1948. 

Only a man ignorant of history would think that Trump is uniquely to be held accountable for some perceived sin, for which there is a long history of precedent. Or, a man with an agenda...)

But a narrow accountability that is obsessed with a powerful man, rather than with the systemic flaws (Will the author identify and explain these systemic flaws?)

that permitted him and his allies to steer the country off the rails, (The country was not steered off the rails. Ironic that the purpose of Mr. Nichol's writing is to impugn, negate, and overturn the Electoral College, which would take the country seriously off the rails. Also ironic is that the current occupant of the White House is implementing destructive and idiotic leftist policies, while presiding over the financial ruin of the country.)

misses an opportunity to get the Congress and the country engaged with the work of eliminating future threats to democracy. (Will the author identify and explain these threats to democracy?)

The committee’s 845-page final report, which was released a few days after the last hearing, featured a handful of policy recommendations—including calls for strengthening legislative tools for barring insurrectionists from holding office and for reform of the fundamentally flawed Electoral Count Act of 1887. (Flaws left unstated...)

But, as a key committee member, Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin, has said, tinkering with the Electoral Count Act, while “necessary,” is “not remotely sufficient.”

Raskin explained Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation, “There are so many curving by-ways and nooks and crannies in the Electoral College that there are opportunities for a lot of strategic mischief…. The Electoral College doesn’t fit [with the aspirations of American democracy] anymore.” (Waaait. First we were reading about the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Now we have jumped to the Electoral College itself. Again we ask, will the author identify and explain the problems as he sees them?)

Of course, the January 6 committee needed to outline its referrals for criminal charges against Trump. (Congressional committees are required to have a legislative purpose. What legislative purpose did the January 6 committee have?)

But it also needed to call for Congress and the states to begin the process of amending the US Constitution to do away with the Electoral College and ensure that future elections are decided by the popular will of the people. (Why? We have [finally] arrived at the author's central thesis, that we need direct democracy. Why? How will this be better? Will the author ever explain?

There is no virtue in the popular vote, and many problems. The founders installed many mechanisms to prevent popular votes in the Federal government:

• The Electoral College was designed to prevent populous states from running roughshod over small states when voting for President. 
• The people vote for a slate of representatives in proportion to the population of their states, who in turn vote for or against legislation. 
• The people vote for Senators, two from each state, who in turn vote for or against legislation. 
• Federal-level judges are nominated by the President and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Thus, all the branches of federal government are undemocratic by design. Our government is a representative government, where the votes cast by the people are for those who will actually make the decisions.

There's nothing about any aspect of the constitutional design of the federal government that is democratic, which of course means that the author is actually advocating for overthrow of our entire system of government. This is what we mentioned in our introduction above, The Agenda.)

Like the prosecution of a former president, seeking to change the process by which presidents are chosen is a daunting task. Yet it has to be discussed, now that we know that conflicts over Electoral College results have led to incitement toward violence—and could do so again. (The author's memory is oddly selective. The Left has protested, burned, occupied, and bombed for decades. But only now is a mostly peaceful protest on January 6 2021 suddenly a problem.)

The January 6 assault (Hyperbole. There wasn't a single firearm in the entire crowd. The Capitol Police literally held open the door. A small crowd went in, looked around, sat in chairs, and generally just left after a few minutes. This is what the author calls an assault.

The only person to actually suffer harm was Ashli Babbitt, who was shot down in cold blood by a Capitol officer.)

on the Capitol sought to disrupt Congress at the precise point when it was charged with certifying the Electoral College results from the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s lawless actions following the election on November 3, 2020, and especially in the weeks prior to January 6, were all focused on creating a circumstance where it might be possible, in the words of Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), to “interfere with the proper conduct of the January 6th [certification process in Congress].” (Will the author ever identify or explain these lawless acts?)

Had there been no Electoral College, there would have been no critical juncture at which to interfere. (Yes, there would be. Since the author is given to making undocumented assertions, we shall simply counter with undocumented denials.)

So why didn’t the committee explain how abolishing the Electoral College could eliminate future threats? (Because abolishing the Electoral College would not eliminate future threats.)

Because, according to media reports, Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney, the leading Republican on the bipartisan committee, had no interest in doing so. (Cheney was a hero to the Left for months, but now is a chump. This always happens to squishy Republicans who think they can gain favor with the Democrats, but some of these Republicans are simply too dumb to understand. 

Leftists are not your friends, Ms. Cheney. They do not care about you. You are only in good graces until you're not, and then you'll suffer their wrath.)

In early June, Axios reported, “Nobody on the House select committee is more committed than Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) to pursuing Trump for inciting the attack on the Capitol. But she flatly opposes some of the more sweeping election law reforms backed by several committee Democrats.”

Specifically, reported Axios, “Cheney thinks the committee will burn its credibility if it pushes for radical changes like abolishing the Electoral College, according to a source with direct knowledge. She also has joked to her colleagues on the committee that there’s no way the single at-large representative for the tiny state of Wyoming would support abolishing the Electoral College, according to another source with direct knowledge of the internal committee deliberations.”

Cheney, whose reelection bid was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters of Wyoming in August, (She was not rejected for failing to support abolishing the Electoral College, she was rejected for making her bed with Leftists and turning coat on her own party and her own state.)

may have thought that abolishing the Electoral College was a joke. But her opposition to the idea proved to be a serious matter for the committee. Democrats knew they needed her support to send a bipartisan signal to the Department of Justice with regard to prosecuting Trump. (Ah, so the author admits it. She was a tool, a useful idiot, only of value to the degree she served their purposes.)

So proposals to eliminate—or, at the least, to neutralize—the Electoral College were abandoned.

That was a mistake, as the Electoral College is very likely to be at the center of future disputes over presidential elections. (Well, it certainly has been at the hands of Democrats, who just can't seem to admit it when they lose.)

Trump lost the popular vote in 2020 by more than 7 million ballots, just as he lost it in 2016 by roughly 3 million ballots. (Which of course is irrelevant. Both candidates in each election ran according to the system in place, the Electoral College. They accepted the rules of the game, and no one gets to claim after the fact that something is amiss in the election because of factors that do not come to bear on the election. 

The Electoral College, therefore, is the only measure of victory or defeat.)

In any other democratic republic, (We are not in "any other democratic republic.")

he wouldn’t have gotten near the White House. And he certainly would not have been afforded an opportunity to cling to power. (The author seems to think that Trump's desire to contest the election due to massive and obvious fraud shouldn't be permitted. Upon what basis this would be true is not discussed.)

But because the Electoral College system allows the popular-vote loser to “win,” (Scare quotes. The Electoral College is our system for determining the winner.)

Trump made a big deal about close contests in a handful of battleground states—Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin, in particular—where electoral votes were up for grabs. Democrat Joe Biden clearly won those states, as canvasses, recounts, (Recounting fraudulent votes would not change the results...)

and court rulings confirmed. (No court ever heard any case brought, all were dismissed on technicalities.)

But Trump’s contesting of relatively close contests framed his objection to the 2020 results, and his call to insurrection. (Which he did not do. The author has yet to document this claim.)

Doing away with the Electoral College would end the tyranny of the battleground states and allow the United States to have nationwide elections in which every vote counts equally. (Um, no. In 2020 the California vote was 11,110,250 for Biden and 6,006,429 for Trump. Over 17 million votes were cast for President in one state. 

The 17 least populated states accounted for a total of 11,843,767 votes cast in 2020, no matter the party: 

• Wyoming: 278,503 votes cast - 193,559 to Trump
• Vermont: 370,968 votes cast - 242,820 to Biden
• Alaska: 359,530 votes cast - 189,951 to Trump
• North Dakota: 361,819 votes cast - 235,595 to Trump
• South Dakota 422,609 votes cast - 261,043 to Trump           
• Delaware 504,346 votes cast - 296,268 to Biden
• Rhode Island 517,757 votes cast - 307,486 to Biden
• Montana 603,695 votes cast - 343,602 to Trump
• Maine 819,461 votes cast - 435,072 to Biden                
• New Hampshire 806,205 votes cast - 424,937 to Biden
• Hawaii 574,469 votes cast - 366,130 to Biden
• West Virginia votes cast - 794,652 545,382 to Trump    
• Idaho 868,014 votes cast - 554,119 to Trump
• Nebraska 951,712 votes cast - 556,846 to Trump
• New Mexico 923,965 votes cast - 501,614 to Biden     
• Kansas 1,372,303 votes cast - 771,406 to Trump 
• Mississippi 1,313,759 votes cast - 756,764 to Trump    

In other words,  the number of people who just voted Democrat in California is the same amount of people who voted in 17 states. This means those 17 states don't even need to bother to vote. 

The top ten states in population constitute about 50% of the population of the US. They are the ones who will determine presidents in this democracy the author is calling for.

So much for "every vote counts equally.")   

Representative Raskin understands this. That’s why he has long advocated for steps that would nullify the Electoral College.

A constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College would do that. But amendments are a heavy lift. This is one of the reasons Raskin has backed the bipartisan National Popular Vote initiative, a multistate compact under which states pledge to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide. (Yup. Typical Leftist. Can't get their agenda passed in the proper, legal way, so they work around the Constitution.)

The compact takes effect only when states with a majority of the nation’s electoral votes—270 or more—have signed on. So far, 15 states and the District of Columbia, with a combined 195 electoral votes, have agreed to the compact.

The January 6 committee could have called on Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College, while at the same time recognizing the difficulties involved in the amendment process. With that in mind, it also could have recommended the National Popular Vote Initiative and other strategies to address the threat posed by the Electoral College. Instead, the committee avoided the issue—an unwise choice, because, as Raskin reminds us, “the Electoral College now, which has given us five popular vote losers as president in our history, twice in this century alone, has become a danger—not just to democracy, but to the American people.” (Five times, yet we're still here. What exactly is nature of this danger?)

John Nichols is a national affairs correspondent for The Nation and the author of the new book Coronavirus Criminals and Pandemic Profiteers: Accountability for Those Who Caused the Crisis (Verso). He’s also the author of The Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party: The Enduring Legacy of Henry Wallace’s Anti-Fascist, Anti-Racist Politics, from Verso; Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America, from Nation Books; and co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy.