Tuesday, a group of senators lead by Brian SchatzBrian Emanuel SchatzNonpartisan Jewish group tells Ocasio-Cortez to avoid Holocaust comparisons Nonpartisan Jewish group tells Ocasio-Cortez to avoid Holocaust comparisons Dem senator: American Jews 'disgusted' by treatment of migrants at border MORE (D-Hawaii) will introduce an Amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

Just last week, Delaware was the latest state to join the push for states allocating all of their electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote for presidential elections. A month ago, Colorado passed their own similar bill. There is a total of 13 states that have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

ADVERTISEMENT

Proponents on both coasts claiming more power by eliminating the Electoral College in the name of a more direct democracy face three major obstacles.

First, in a direct democracy, voters between I-95 and I-5 could create their own country. The central argument for opponents of the Electoral College is that the majority must always win in a democracy, and the Electoral College can choose a president even if the majority of Americans did not vote for them.

Reductio ad absurdum is the philosophical term for proving an argument is wrong by showing that relying on the same assuming leads to other ridiculous conclusions. The Electoral College has always offered protection for states with smaller populations, and if that is removed in the name of direct democracy then the same “direct democracy” argument would allow Americans who live in the 3,000 miles between I-95 on the east coast and I-5 on the west coast to vote to form their own country and elect their own president if that is what the majority wants.

This new direct democracy would not only be freed from the Constitutional restraints of the Electoral College, but also Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade that will be used to challenge the new laws in Mississippi and Georgia that outlaw abortions after the heart beat and brainwaves are detected in the first two months of pregnancy.

Since President TrumpDonald John TrumpBooker hits Biden's defense of remarks about segregationist senators: 'He's better than this' Booker hits Biden's defense of remarks about segregationist senators: 'He's better than this' Trump says Democrats are handing out subpoenas 'like they're cookies' MORE won in 2016 in the states making up the 3,000 miles between I-95 and I-5 by 6 million votes over Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonDemocrats bristle as Hicks appears for daylong Capitol Hill testimony Democrats bristle as Hicks appears for daylong Capitol Hill testimony Trump: 'So sad' Democrats are putting Hope Hicks 'through hell' MORE, it’s likely he could serve as many terms as he wanted. This is because term limits would no longer prevent the people from using their direct democracy to re-elect him as many times as they wanted.

ADVERTISEMENT

California farmers in the valley would be thrilled to be rid of California regulations as part of their new country and no longer be governed by the more densely populated San Francisco/Silicon Valley to Los Angeles/Hollywood.

The second problem proponents of throwing out the Electoral College face is that if the presidential election were just one nationwide vote, you would need uniform voting laws to ensure that certain states were not gaining power by allowing votes that would not be allowed in other states.

Even before San Francisco decided to allow illegal immigrants to vote, a study by Old Dominion University calculated that close to 1 million illegal votes were cast by illegal immigrants. Couple that with hidden camera video of New England poll workers telling a visitor from another state that they could vote for Hillary Clinton, even after being told the man was just hanging out with a friend in the state for the day, indicates a willingness to let anyone cast a vote in some places with no Voter ID.

Every world democracy requires Voter ID except for the U.S., England and Australia.

Voters in the states between the coasts can assume that more liberal states that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their local elections, and refuse to check IDs of anyone voting in presidential elections, will end up with millions of extra votes cast that they would consider illegal votes in their own states.

Finally, a national recount would sink our democratic republic.

The Florida recount in 2000 put a strain on our democracy. Both political parties flew every lawyer and observer they could to the state to monitor hanging chads and bang on the door when Democratic election officials in Dade County tried to take all the ballots behind closed doors and out of view.

Now envision that, instead of the election of a president coming down to a few hundred votes in one state that can be monitored, it came down to a few hundred or even few thousand votes nationally. So, instead of monitoring counties throughout one state that matter, each party tries to get lawyers in a few key counties in each state. Then suddenly some uncounted ballots come in late in Idaho or the Dakotas tipping the race to the Republican, then in Vermont tipping it to the Democrat.

Americans would go into full rebellion assuming the other side is manufacturing votes with the presidency on the line.

A proposal of abolishing the Electoral College should be offered to voters in a package that also allows a referendum for voters from I-95 to I-5 to choose if they want to form their own country now that the protection for small states of the Electoral College would therefore be removed.

John Pudner is executive director of Take Back Our Republic.