Flunking College

A number of people--invariably Democrats--have been complaining about our Constitutional system lately. For instance, the suddenly famous socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweets "it is well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery's power on American today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic."

I'm afraid she's got historical illiteracy to go along with her economic illiteracy.  There are a number of reasons we set up the Electoral College, and there are decent arguments pro and con, but to emphasize slavery's power, and not the fears of small states forced to go along with mob rule (not to mention the Founders being a little frightened of pure democracy) is just weird.

But the complaints don't stop there.  Democrats also want to change the rules of the Senate--why should Wyoming and California get the same number of senators?  Well, whether or not you think this is a good idea, it was a compromise that allowed this nation to be formed.  And, of course, since it can't be changed without the consent of these small states, don't hold your breath.

Then we get to the real bone of contention at present.  They're unhappy with Bret Kavanaugh's confirmation.  There's a tweet going around that wraps it up pretty well:

We are a country where two presidents who both lost the popular vote have now placed four justices on the Supreme Court.  Democracy in action.

Of course, this is all sour grapes. They're not complaining out of principle, but because they believe the system isn't working for them (and the GOP defends the system not out of principle, but because they believe it's a good deal for them).  I bet if we did make radical change, the Democrats might get some unpleasant surprises, and could just as quickly wish for the old days.

In any case, I question their reading of the stats.  Look at the tweet directly above.  They give a false impression of the numbers.  For one thing, George W. Bush actually won a majority of the popular vote in 2004, after which he got to make his two picks for the Supreme Court, Roberts and Alito.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 with only 43% of the vote--far less than Bush or Trump got--yet he followed that election with his two picks for the highest court. (Note he also got less than a majority in his 1996 reelection).  Would the Democrats really be happier if they had been denied Ginsburg and Breyer?