Bill O’Reilly Uses Jinnah-like Argument for Ruling Privileges for Whites Via Electoral College

In the run up to partition of India and Pakistan, Jinnah’s main argument was for “separate electorates”.  Muslims and Hindus were separate and per him, they needed to have guaranteed electoral representation.  One of his points was “Central Legislature the Muslim representation should not be less than one- third” and he also wanted to ensure that “territorial redistribution should not in any way affect the Muslim majority in the Punjab, Bengal and North-West Frontier Province”.

Basically he was asking for weightage for Muslim vote overall that was in excess of their ratio in population.  That meant that Hindu vote would be valued lesser in individual terms than a Muslim vote.

This is what led to partition finally.

Such “representation in excess of Votes” argument is usually given by those who want to maintain a hold onto power irrespective of the voice of others.  So, if Jinnah’s fans wanted a certain course say, in relation to Jihad, they could influence it because they would have been ok with it as long as it aligned with their religious feelings as opposed to whether it made sense from the national perspective.

Separate Electorate and “representation in excess of the vote” are therefore means that ensure subversion of democracy and One-man-one-vote principle where everyone has equal say in the choice of the final ruling coalition.

The argument for Electoral College in US has been inspired by the Jinnah-ist view of electoral representation.  In the Electoral College system, if in any state a majority number of electoral votes go in favor of one party, then the entire electoral vote numbers are just handed off to that party.  So if Republican party wins the popular vote in any state, then all the Republican electors selected by say, Donald Trump (this year 2016) will vote and give the complete number of Electoral Votes that the state represents to Trump.

Contrast this with a parliamentary elections where each “constituency” or “election district” stands on its own with respect to representation to the final Central legislature.  So if 6 out of 10 districts voted Trump, then instead of all 10 “electoral votes” going to Trump, only 6 will go in his kitty and 4 will go to Hillary (assuming a two-party elections).  The final tally of the “electoral votes” will be tallied based on a National total and not “winner takes all state selection”.

Republicans have used this representation in excess of the votes framework to have rural votes decide the states in excess of the numbers of votes that urban voters have.

Why is that?  Well, let us listen to Bill O’Reilly – the Fox news host in how he lays down the White Supremacist view of governance in the US.  Per him, the White men cannot lose power because of their entitlement and any inroads that minorities (including women) make into the power circles is something that needs to be fought.  He is laying out his argument against the dismantling of the Electoral College here, but it reveals a far deeper level of racist underpinnings of the electoral college system.

Just like Jinnah wanted to ensure that Muslims were treated like a separate electorate and given privileges far beyond what any representational democracy would otherwise, O’Reilly wants guarantees for a certain electorate.  He wants to ensure that no system can take away the right that White men have with respect to policy making irrespective of the numbers, voices and votes of the minorities.

Trump, who is already working with other global players for a pan-supremacist movement, would gladly back O’Reilly up on his arguments for this guarantees to rural White population far in excess of what their votes represent.