Mark Weston has a running grudge against the Electoral College, and is willing to do just about anything to dismantle it. But what he really has grudge against, is the fact that large swaths of America are conservative, not progressive. And what really bothers him, enough to write a book or two on the subject, is that it’s been Democratic presidential candidates who have lost elections in the last 16 years while winning more of the popular vote. He even rails against the constitution itself for having put in place a system that gives representation to the states through the electoral college.

Would he have done the same had Al Gore lost the popular vote but won the electoral college in 2000? Or Hillary in 2016?

So Weston, writing in Time magazine, suggests a new tactic that Democrat voters should use, the next time a GOP candidate takes the electoral college while failing to win the popular vote: a tax rebellion.

Weston suggests setting up an escrow account in a Canadian or British bank (this is not fiction folks – he really wrote this) where angry Democrat voters can send their federal taxes (state and local taxes should continue to be faithfully paid in Weston’s tax war on the GOP). Once true democracy is restored, by that he means using the popular vote to determine the president of America, then all those trillions can be remitted back to the IRS. In fact, merely the threat of doing this would push Congress and the Executive to reform the constitution, in Weston’s view.

Ok. So this is a taunting little pamphlet more than anything else. But he might just mean it, seeing he seems genuinely determined to do what he can to eliminate the electoral college. But this is not a tax rebellion properly speaking. A tax rebellion – like the Whiskey Rebellion in the early 1790’s – is a rebellion against a specific tax or against the tax system in general. Proposition 13 in California in 1978 was an angry pushback against rapidly escalating property taxes, for example.

What Mark Weston is proposing is to use the withholding of federal taxes to force the federal government to alter the constitution in a fundamental way. This is not a tax rebellion, this is blackmailing your way to radical constitutional reform. And if such an extreme idea (maybe he’ll say he was only joking, like the tech exec who threatened to assassinate Trump in a series of tweets) gains traction, it sets a dangerous precedent. Because it is more analogous to the Southern States’ secession in the years and months leading up to the Civil War, than a tax revolt. The tax part is just a way to gain leverage.

This is the man who claims to be speaking on behalf of a “moderate nation”, against the “second-place presidency” that a “hard-right” GOP imposes on America? What will his next idea be when the Great Tax Withholding Plan fails? Actual secession by the Northeast and West Coast? How about: “we lost, fair and square. Now let’s think about where we went wrong.”

Comments