Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, left, listens as Office of Management and Budget Acting Director Russell Vought testifies before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 12, 2019, during a hearing on the fiscal year 2020 budget. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Red State’s Thomas LaDuke wrote last month about the left’s aggressive push to abolish the Electoral College on grounds that it somehow punishes minority voters. The movement was recently amplified in an Instagram Live video done by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) as well as tweets she posted claiming black, Latino, and Indian voters were being “disenfranchised” by the Electoral College.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) had the audacity to respond to AOC’s claims at the time:

… which prompted Democrats like MSNBC’s Chris Hayes to make laughable arguments about how “if [the Electoral College] wasn’t specifically in the Constitution for the presidency, it would be unconstitutional”:

WATCH: @chrislhayes on the electoral college: “The weirdest thing about the electoral college is the fact that if it wasn't specifically in the Constitution for the presidency, it would be unconstitutional.” #inners pic.twitter.com/bA5n31w03y — All In w/Chris Hayes (@allinwithchris) August 31, 2019

And in a lengthy piece were he absurdly argued AOC “understands democracy better than Republicans do” (which she retweeted), New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie asserted that arguments like Crenshaw’s in favor of the EC are “part and parcel of the drive to make American government a closed domain for a select, privileged few.”

In other words, racism, y’all. Because when all else fails, that is the card Democrats like to play.

In the middle of the Labor Day holiday weekend, Crenshaw clapped back in a video response in which he countered Hayes, Bouie, and other Democrats like AOC on abolishing the EC:

“A Republic is more stable,” Crenshaw said in the video. “It’s also more representative of the entirety of the country.”



He went on to note that a Republic has “institutional checks and balances between the three branches of government and an emphasis on state’s rights, so it’s really difficult to ram through sweeping policy that affects the entirety of the country.”



Crenshaw also stated that “because we have an equally apportioned Senate and Electoral College, it means smaller states have a voice. Smaller, more rural states actually have a voice both in the Congress and when electing our president.”

Watch his full video response below:

NYT’s Jamelle Bouie and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes take a swing and miss…badly. Let’s break down their bad arguments for abolishing the electoral college, one by one. https://t.co/7QYEuxWtxT pic.twitter.com/guwtadIe7E — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) August 31, 2019

He also posted a series of tweets on this topic:

Claim: Every vote should be = in America, no matter who you are or where you come from Yep. That’s why if you live in rural America, your voice should still count. The EC promotes more equal regional representation, and protects the interests of sparsely populated states. — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) August 31, 2019

Claim: Republicans live in cities just as Democrats live in rural areas. This isn’t a political party issue, it’s a regional one. People living in rural areas have different problems than people living in cities. Politicians should not ignore concerns from the rural population. — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) August 31, 2019

Claim: Abolishing the electoral college would force elections to “involve every region" not just competitive states. Not true. Without the electoral college, why ever spend time in NH? NV? IA? All time would be spent in the 10 most populated states to get a candidate to 51% — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) August 31, 2019

Claim: I “implied” we aren’t a democracy. False. The debate is around what type of democracy we want. A pure democracy, which would remove the electoral college, or a representative democracy, which uses republican institutions to ensure representation for all. — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) August 31, 2019

Claim: America has "counter-majoritarian aspects," like the Senate and Presidential veto. "It was not designed for minority rule.” The electoral college, like the filibuster, is to ensure the minority is represented & heard. No one is claiming “minority rule.” — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) August 31, 2019

Claim: This is a right-wing slogan, used by John Birch society founder, & an effort to make America a closed domain for a select few. This argument has no basis in fact and simply attacks the character of those who defend republican institutions and accuses us of bad motives. — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) August 31, 2019

Well done.

Related –>> Boom: GOP Spokeswoman Drops A MOAB On Stacey Abrams’ Argument Against The Electoral College

——-

— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –