On Tuesday, Hillary won Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island and prevented her campaign for the Democratic nomination from coming to an end. She hailed this as a great triumph and will use this to argue that she has won most of the “big states” while Obama has thus far won mostly the “small states.”

This argument should be lambasted as invalid by every American patriot—whether they are Hillary supporters or not. When the Founding Fathers devised the American Constitution, they rejected the notion that America would be a direct democracy: that is, that every individual would have one vote and that the nation would be governed according to the simple will of the majority. This approach had been attempted many times in the ancient world and had failed because direct democracies do not reflect regional disparities adequately and they can potentially trample on minority rights. In other words, a direct democracy can result in the “tyranny of the majority.” As the Founding Fathers knew, previous direct democracies could not resolve the tensions and resentments which erupted from those whose rights appeared to be repeatedly violated by the “tyranny of the majority”: direct democracies eventually led to instability and ultimate chaos within the republic—to the point that they were replaced by oligarchies or autocracies.

For this reason, the Founding Fathers based the American Constitution on the notion of representational democracy, rather than direct democracy.  This means that while every American has the right to cast one vote, the ultimate governing power of the nation is nonetheless distributed among the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government. This ensures that the will of the majority is represented—but not exclusively. Majority will is tempered by regional representation and by a judiciary which safeguards the rights of minorities. This is the genius of American democracy; it is the reason that the American Republic defied all the odds when it was established in 1776 and succeeded as a model for a form of government which could uphold the will of the majority of people while also providing stability, representing the diverse regions and safeguarding minority rights.

The Democratic primary process is also created according to these same brilliant American principles. It is for this reason that the will of the majority in the Democratic primaries is counterbalanced by proportional representation. The states elect delegates who ultimately elect the nominee. This ensures precisely that big states like New York, California and Texas do not establish a “tyranny of the majority” over the small American states. The unique need of various regions and the will of American citizens living in states which are less populous are just as important as the needs and wishes of individuals living in larger states.

Hillary’s argument that the most populous states in America are the ones that really count is profoundly insulting to the inhabitants of the smaller states and is a recipe for regional strife—and ultimately for instability within the nation.

The Clintons need to be reminded that the rules established for the primary process are rooted in an American outlook which has stood the test of time. Once again, the Clintons reveal that within the primary process, they are willing to place their own self-interest ahead of the interests of their party and ultimately of their nation. It is for this very reason that the Clintons are so profoundly mistrusted and despised by many of their opponents: they do not appear to have one shred of genuine American patriotism; not an ounce of authentic regard for the traditions and laws of their nation.

Big states? Little states? American citizens in Idaho, Vermont, Nebraska, Georgia and Colorado, for example, count just as much as citizens in New York, California and Texas. At this stage in the campaign, Obama still leads in total delegates, total number of states and the overall popular vote. His candidacy best reflects the American representative model of rule as conceived by the Founding Fathers: leaders are chosen in such a manner as to reflect the majority will while also being attentive to regional disparities and the rights of minorities.

If Hillary insists on her “big state argument,” she should be told to take her campaign to a foreign land and let Americans choose their leaders according to their time-tested and honored traditions.

-Grace Vuoto is the Executive Director of the Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal. The opinions expressed are her own.