Lax Election Enforcement Must Go

It looks like Hillary Clinton will finish with slightly more popular votes than President-elect Donald Trump, who won a clear majority of Electoral votes last Tuesday.

Predictably, Democrats are clamoring to abolish the Electoral College, which the Founders created as part of the separation of powers and a hedge against mob rule.

Big states with large cities dominated by Democrats are disadvantaged by the winner-take-all rules, the Dems argue. California, New York and Illinois went big for Mrs. Clinton, but were countered by Trump victories in dozens of smaller states and some big ones, too, such as Ohio, Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania.

The main argument for abolishing the Electoral College is that people who voted for the loser in any of these states had no say and figuratively “wasted” their votes. Giving each vote equal weight regardless of where you vote would level the playing field, they say.

Well, maybe not. Consider an obvious implication:

If the election were decided strictly by popular vote, Democrats could ignore all the smaller states and run up the totals in the big, traditionally “progressive” states, plus any Democrat-dominated urban areas. Chicago alone could dig up enough votes in its cemeteries to counter not only the pesky Republican downstate Illinois voters but could also help swing the national total into the D column.

In New York, Project Veritas Action undercover cameras caught Alan Schulkin, the commissioner of the city Board of Elections, at a teachers union party in October admitting that New York City has widespread voter fraud.

“Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud,” Mr. Schulkin said.

More here