This Slate Article Shows What the Media Truly Think of Swing State Voters

Left-wing outlet Slate Magazine says swing-state politics is "Harming Democracy," as betting odds currently show Donald Trump beating Kamala Harris in every swing state but Nevada.

.@Polymarket - Presidential Election Winner

🟥 Donald Trump: 57%
🟦 Kamala Harris: 43%

Sept. 19 odds - 🔵 Harris 52-47%
——
Swing States (chance of winning)

Arizona - 🔴 Trump 68-32%
Georgia - 🔴 Trump 64-36%
North Carolina - 🔴 Trump 63-37%
Pennsylvania - 🔴 Trump 55-45%… https://t.co/UgbEdqbv88 pic.twitter.com/2aOusDLuof
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) October 15, 2024

In an article — subtitled "Enough about fracking Pennsylvania!" — Slate contributor David Faris regurgitates calls to abolish the Electoral College.

"The Electoral College is far and away the single most ridiculous institution in the democratic world," wrote Faris, an associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University, bemoaning that "Twice this century, the Electoral College has awarded control of the presidency to the candidate who received fewer votes than his opponent."

Continuing, the Slate writer gripes: "[T]he Electoral College is the reason that the entire 2024 election is going to come down to roughly seven states in a country with 50 of them, plus Washington, D.C. Collectively these states hold less than 20 percent of the American population, yet for the past 18 months they have gotten to dominate the national conversation in ways the rest of us could only dream about. There are more Republicans in the Democratic stronghold of California than there are in Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada put together, but no one cares what they say or think because they have had the misfortune of being more or less permanently outnumbered by Democrats in statewide elections for a generation."

"If I hear the presidential candidates use their precious time in national debates to pledge their undying fealty to a policy—hydraulic fracking—that is important to a fraction of the voters of one swing state, I am going to try to talk several hundred thousand of my closest associates in Illinois into voting Republican for one cycle so that we get some consideration the next time around. And to my friends in the battlegrounds who are sick and tired of the nonstop politicking and attention, all I can say is: We're as sick of you as you are of us."

As Slate demonstrates, the mainstream media not only want mob rule; they seek an oligarchy, one which they are a part of, serving as the regime's mouthpiece.

They wonder why everyday Americans don't just vote for Kamala, the hand-picked choice of the establishment installed in the place of the party's actual elected candidate, whom the oligarchs overthrew despite the people (more than 14 million registered Democrats) picking him during the primary process.

When the Electoral College was created, our nation's Founders intended to balance the power of popular sovereignty with the peril posed to the minority by majoritarianism. Smaller states feared that a federal system that apportioned representatives based on population would mean underrepresentation for them. So, the Founding Fathers designed a way for the will of the people to be incorporated while still safeguarding against factions and the concentration of power — i.e. avoiding purely population-based representation but simultaneously giving larger states greater electoral weight.

In practice, the Electoral College moderates the influence of big cities over rural areas. Thus, the little guy matters because the presidency isn't decided strictly by popular vote. That's why the blue-haired barista in Los Angeles, who was just arrested at "her/their" third Antifa riot, has proportionally equal representation as that of the small-town farmer in Vermont.