January 19, 2018

The Electoral College, Sheriffs and the Bill of Rights

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Guest post by Jim Beers:

As the calls to “do away with the Electoral College and go to direct election of Presidents” grow, rural Americans better prepare to stand and be counted. Don’t be fooled that this is a partisan move because it is the Democrats that want it.

If the Electoral College is eliminated, Presidential candidates will ONLY have to campaign in the cities where the majority (pure democracy) of all votes exist. These urban voters are the bedrock of ever-higher taxes, gun control, government property control, government land acquisition, wilderness, hunting/fishing elimination, abortion, same-sex activities, Federal hegemony over State governments, draconian environmental and animal rights laws, public land closures, and an abiding disinterest in the welfare and culture of rural America. Federal tax largesse would shift more and more state and federal tax dollars to urban enclaves and their acquiescent Mayors that support national political winners to guarantee future votes in more frequently rigged urban voting systems.

Doing away with The Electoral College guarantees a rural America more and more in the shadow of urban America just as rural Illinois is shaded by Chicago or rural New York struggles in the shadow of “The City”. Rural states like South Dakota or New Mexico or Alabama will eventually become merely asterisks in our children’s history books.

This week the President appeared in Minneapolis to tout gun control as he spoke before wallpaper made up of diverse, uniformed law enforcement officers. As he pontificated how we all want “universal background checks” (I don’t think so) and how we “support clip control”, I was struck by the nature of these pensive and costumed gun control “Dick Tracies” on the wallpaper behind him.

When the Obama, Bloomberg, and Emmanuel gun controllers wheel out these gun control law officers they are almost entirely urban appointees and employees of the President or Mayor that hires (and can fire) them. They are like the Generals on the vaunted “Joint Chiefs of Staff” (appointed and fired by the President) that assure us about how women can do anything a man can do in combat without disrupting unit cohesion and how same-sex enthusiasts are not disruptive to unit cohesion and performance whether in combat or on submarines. That is to say, they are not “experienced experts whose words are worth considering”; they are little more than “Charlie McCarthies” on the knee of their mentor.

Disregarding the handful of urban Sheriffs, the overwhelming number of American Sheriffs are rural representatives, elected by rural constituents that vote not only their interests but their rural values, culture and traditions. Whether we are concerned about gun control or public road closures or government property seizures, etc. our elected rural Sheriffs have become our first line of defense in protecting rural America from both urban majority control of our state governments’ overreach and from growing federal impositions on rural American property, economies, and rights.

God Bless our Sheriffs and remember that your vote for them may be the most important one you can cast in rural America today.

Rural Americans should consider the Constitutional precedents being set by current and planned gun control. As guns go; so goes our other freedoms.

The 1st Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law… establishing religion… prohibiting free exercise thereof… abridging freedom of speech or of the press… or the right to assemble and to petition the Government…”.

The 2nd Amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Notice that the 1st merely prohibits “Congress” from making laws as noted while the 2nd says “THE RIGHT” “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. The 2nd says no one shall infringe the right to bear Arms; yet Chicago, Washington DC, New York, San Francisco all get away with absolutely infringing this Constitutional right to bear Arms. Now the federal nannies want to further infringe on this right with an eye toward background checks that lead to registration that leads to confiscation that leads to? Why? Because urban voting blocs (again the pure national majority of voters) and their political leaders simply want it done is the answer.

If urban majority desires, urban political leaders, and federal advocates of an absolutely powerful federal government can simply plow under a Constitutional “right” simply by replacing the Constitution with majority rule what about those other rights (speech, religion, press, assemble and petition) that are merely protected from “Congress” making a law? Could Chicago outlaw Catholics? Could New York ban racial minorities? Could San Francisco ban heterosexuals? Could Boston take control of the newspapers? Could Los Angeles bar any assembly or petition from residents? If they can simply dismiss “the (Constitutional) right to bear Arms” that “shall not be infringed” why can’t they simply force the State government to ban Baptists or imprison people expressing forbidden speech? If it is simply a case of majority votes, we are all lost.

So rural America, fight to keep The Electoral College; support your Sheriff and elect only good ones; and fight to prevent ANY infringement of our Constitutional Rights. The future of rural America, especially, depends on us.

Jim Beers

6 February 2013

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share
  • The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

    The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

    National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

    And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don’t matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

    With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

    Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

    When and where voters matter, then so do the issues they care about most.

  • None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground
    states, and they are ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

    Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%.

    NationalPopularVote

  • With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

    The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

    Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.

    If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

    A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all
    methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

    The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

    With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

    Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

    In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

    Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

    There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and
    U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

    With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

    Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such
    as waitress mom voters in Ohio.