In yet another example of the concept that liberals cannot accept defeat in a presidential election, author Mark Weston stated in a column posted on the TIME magazine website on Tuesday that the “approximately 65 million Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton should pledge that in the future, if a Republican wins the presidency with fewer votes than a Democrat,” “we won't pay taxes to the federal government.”
Noting that Trump's win marks the second time in the past 16 years that “a Republican candidate who finished second in the popular vote has won the presidency,” Weston declared that Democrats should adopt the motto: “No taxation without representation!”
The author of the book The Runner-Up Presidency: The Elections That Defied America's Popular Will also asserted that liberals should continue using this tactic “until democracy is restored,” or put another way, until a Democrat again wins the White House.
Weston stated: “If a Republican wins the presidency with fewer votes than a Democrat for the third time in our era” -- including George W. Bush's victory in 2000 -- liberals should seek to change the way votes are tabulated.
“This year, Donald Trump won the electoral vote with about 46 percent of the popular vote,” he noted, “while Hillary Clinton received about 48 percent. If the parties stay this evenly divided, another electoral mishap is more likely than not in the next 20 years.”
The author continued:
Most Republicans are quite content with this system. Appeals to fairness have not persuaded them of the need to amend the Constitution to establish direct presidential elections, preferably with a runoff if no one wins 50 percent of the vote.
Nor does the real chance that a Democrat could win the presidency with fewer votes than a Republican alarm them.
“Democrats must, therefore, pester Republicans where it hurts: the pocketbook,” Weston asserted.
“Is signing a pledge to not pay taxes legal?” he asked. ”Yes, if no overt act of conspiracy is involved, and the pledge itself is hypothetical. No one knows when or if it would be carried out.”
“A national movement not to pay federal taxes in the future would put Republicans on notice,” he continued. “They do not have the right to impose a hard-right, second-place presidency on a moderate nation every dozen or so years.”
“If the Republicans won’t help amend the Constitution so that America can resume being a democracy,” Weston added, “then Democrats, lacking the representation that supporters of a future popular vote-winner ought to have in the executive branch, should not submit to paying taxes to the federal government.”
“How would the pledge work?” the author asked. “First, an online group such as MoveOn.org, Change.org or both should circulate a petition. The pledge is not just a powerful protest; it is also effortless, requiring no legal or financial sacrifice.”
“Second,” he noted, “the pledge should only apply to federal taxes. We would still pay state, local, sales and property taxes. This is a protest against our 229-year-old system of electoral votes, not against taxation in general.”
“Third, if a Republican wins an election without winning the popular vote again,” Weston noted, “we should still pay what we owe in federal taxes -- just not to the IRS [Internal Revenue Service].”
“Instead, people would compute their federal taxes, file a Form 1040 and write a check to a national escrow account, preferably in a well-established Canadian or British bank that is beyond the reach of the U.S. Justice Department,” he continued.
The reason for Weston's strategy? “Because whoever opens this account probably will be in violation of U.S. law. In the check’s memo line, people should write: 'Funds to be transferred to the IRS as soon as America resumes being a democracy.'”
“Then, when 38 state legislatures have ratified an acceptable Constitutional amendment, the escrow officer could cheerfully transfer the account’s trillions of dollars to the IRS,” the author continued.
“The beauty of a no-taxation pledge is that it almost certainly won’t have to be carried out,” Weston noted. “The mere threat could be enough to propel a Constitutional amendment.”
“If millions sign now, Republicans will know that a third modern Republican runner-up presidency is impossible,” he stated.
“The cry 'No Taxation Without Representation' inspired America to declare its independence in 1776. It can also lead to a rebirth of democracy in our own time.”
Of course, Weston is being unfair when it comes to fairness in elections. One reason the Electoral College was established was to prevent voters in large cities -- who are likely to be liberal Democrats -- from dominating the electoral process.
Naturally, Weston's proposed system would virtually guarantee that a Democrat would win the White House in every election. But isn't that the definition of “fairness” to a liberal?
