The Far left trying to get rid of the Electoral College

[FlatBootyJudy]

In the midst of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, many Americans have likely missed coverage of a growing storm in the world of politics. It’s a scheme recently promoted by the far left of the Democratic Party – including the New York Times and activist Michael Moore – to deny President Trump reelection in 2020.

Their plan? Cheat.

To understand how, we need to first remember a quirk of American democracy.

Most of us will recall that the U.S. constitution doesn’t allow its citizens to directly elect our president. Instead, an Electoral College assembles every four years and selects the nation’s leader. This unconventional College, with members from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, is technically free to vote for whomever it wants. However, in practice, these members – also called electors – almost always vote for the candidate that wins their home state.

Honest Democrats will admit that this proposal is being advanced only because we lost in 2016. Had it been Hillary Clinton who won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, we wouldn’t be pushing for this “elegant” solution.

In other words, if Trump wins Michigan, the state’s electors will almost always vote for him in the Electoral College (even though they don’t have to).

The far left wants to abolish this system. Why? As Moore recently argued, Trump will probably win reelection if we keep the Electoral College (which he won 304-227 in 2016). If, however, the country were to replace it with a national popular vote, a Democrat would stand a much better chance of victory.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton beat Trump by nearly three million total votes in 2016.

In normal times, dumping the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment. However, the far left is advocating for what it calls an “elegant” runaround – officially labeled the Interstate Compact – where states pool their electors for whichever candidate wins the national vote irrespective of their state’s vote.

Let’s take an example. Had the compact been in place in 2016, electors in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would have been forced to vote for Clinton even though Trump won their home states. Why? Clinton won more total national votes.

As of this writing, 11 states and their legislatures have signed on to the Interstate Compact. If the effort attracts a few more states that represent 105 Electoral College votes, the scheme goes into effect.

Not surprisingly, some of my fellow Democrats are tempted by this plan, including former Vice President Al Gore. However there are at least four reasons why the party and its sensible members must loudly and publicly reject this illicit compact.

We Lost. Move on. Honest Democrats will admit that this proposal is being advanced only because we lost in 2016. Had it been Hillary Clinton who won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, we wouldn’t be pushing for this “elegant” solution. That hypocrisy should remind us that cooler heads must prevail. Our democracy and its constitution are not playthings to be discarded when a political party doesn’t get their way.

Bad Candidate: While supporters of the compact highlight that Clinton won more total votes than Trump, they fail to mention that 14 Democratic nominees before her have managed to win the Electoral College – and thus the presidency. That includes a biracial man named Barack Hussein Obama who won twice during the nation’s war on Islamic terror.

In other words, Democrats didn’t have an Electoral College problem in 2016. We had a candidate problem. Our constitution shouldn’t bear the burden of punishment for the mistake we Democrats made in nominating a deeply flawed individual.

It’s (Likely) Unconstitutional: The far left makes no mention that the Supreme Court would likely find the compact unconstitutional if it were adopted. Indeed, our founding documents specifically prohibit political compacts between states where it either erodes federal power or that of states not in agreement.

While the Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling is debatable, it’s clear that this particular compact is exclusively political in nature and would not have the support of all (or even most) states. Additionally, it’s wholly designed to be an end run around how Americans are supposed to change or abolish the Electoral College, namely through the constitutional amendment process.

And that leads us to the final and most important reason why patriotic Democrats and our elected leaders must dismiss this idea publicly and resolutely.

Follow the Rules: The nation’s founders purposefully made the constitution difficult to amend. They didn’t want hotheaded activists (or their favorite media outlets) changing the nation’s fate without rigorous dialogue and debate.

In other words, we can make changes to our electoral system but we must do it right. That means calling for either a constitutional convention or getting Congress to start the amendment process.

It’s clear, though, that extremists in the Democratic Party aren’t keen on doing things right. Why? They know that passing constitutional reforms is tough. Indeed, amendments almost always fail.

For them, that means there’s only one solution: cheating. They’re willing to treat the constitution like a downed tree to be cleared in order to secure the White House in 2020.

But if that’s what it takes to win, this Democrat would rather lose.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...l-college.html



Why is that the Dems had no problem with the Electoral College until after they lost?

[satimy]

Very unlikely to happen, you'd need 3/4 of the states to ratify and the majority of those would lose influence

[Kujako]

Why is that the Dems had no problem with the Electoral College until after they lost?

Ask the President, he had a real problem with it when someone of a darker skin hue won the election but lost the popular vote.

[Belize]

Ask the President, he had a real problem with it when someone of a darker skin hue won the election but lost the popular vote.

Which is funny because Obama had won the popular vote too

[Vanyali]

The EC is stupid, unless all states drop FPTP system. It doesn't, at all, represent voters, and disproportionately skews votes in specific states to make them far more important than others in its current implementation.

[Daelak]

In the midst of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, many Americans have likely missed coverage of a growing storm in the world of politics. It’s a scheme recently promoted by the far left of the Democratic Party – including the New York Times and activist Michael Moore – to deny President Trump reelection in 2020.

Their plan? Cheat.

To understand how, we need to first remember a quirk of American democracy.

Most of us will recall that the U.S. constitution doesn’t allow its citizens to directly elect our president. Instead, an Electoral College assembles every four years and selects the nation’s leader. This unconventional College, with members from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, is technically free to vote for whomever it wants. However, in practice, these members – also called electors – almost always vote for the candidate that wins their home state.

Honest Democrats will admit that this proposal is being advanced only because we lost in 2016. Had it been Hillary Clinton who won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, we wouldn’t be pushing for this “elegant” solution.

In other words, if Trump wins Michigan, the state’s electors will almost always vote for him in the Electoral College (even though they don’t have to).

The far left wants to abolish this system. Why? As Moore recently argued, Trump will probably win reelection if we keep the Electoral College (which he won 304-227 in 2016). If, however, the country were to replace it with a national popular vote, a Democrat would stand a much better chance of victory.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton beat Trump by nearly three million total votes in 2016.

In normal times, dumping the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment. However, the far left is advocating for what it calls an “elegant” runaround – officially labeled the Interstate Compact – where states pool their electors for whichever candidate wins the national vote irrespective of their state’s vote.

Let’s take an example. Had the compact been in place in 2016, electors in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would have been forced to vote for Clinton even though Trump won their home states. Why? Clinton won more total national votes.

As of this writing, 11 states and their legislatures have signed on to the Interstate Compact. If the effort attracts a few more states that represent 105 Electoral College votes, the scheme goes into effect.

Not surprisingly, some of my fellow Democrats are tempted by this plan, including former Vice President Al Gore. However there are at least four reasons why the party and its sensible members must loudly and publicly reject this illicit compact.

We Lost. Move on. Honest Democrats will admit that this proposal is being advanced only because we lost in 2016. Had it been Hillary Clinton who won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, we wouldn’t be pushing for this “elegant” solution. That hypocrisy should remind us that cooler heads must prevail. Our democracy and its constitution are not playthings to be discarded when a political party doesn’t get their way.

Bad Candidate: While supporters of the compact highlight that Clinton won more total votes than Trump, they fail to mention that 14 Democratic nominees before her have managed to win the Electoral College – and thus the presidency. That includes a biracial man named Barack Hussein Obama who won twice during the nation’s war on Islamic terror.

In other words, Democrats didn’t have an Electoral College problem in 2016. We had a candidate problem. Our constitution shouldn’t bear the burden of punishment for the mistake we Democrats made in nominating a deeply flawed individual.

It’s (Likely) Unconstitutional: The far left makes no mention that the Supreme Court would likely find the compact unconstitutional if it were adopted. Indeed, our founding documents specifically prohibit political compacts between states where it either erodes federal power or that of states not in agreement.

While the Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling is debatable, it’s clear that this particular compact is exclusively political in nature and would not have the support of all (or even most) states. Additionally, it’s wholly designed to be an end run around how Americans are supposed to change or abolish the Electoral College, namely through the constitutional amendment process.

And that leads us to the final and most important reason why patriotic Democrats and our elected leaders must dismiss this idea publicly and resolutely.

Follow the Rules: The nation’s founders purposefully made the constitution difficult to amend. They didn’t want hotheaded activists (or their favorite media outlets) changing the nation’s fate without rigorous dialogue and debate.

In other words, we can make changes to our electoral system but we must do it right. That means calling for either a constitutional convention or getting Congress to start the amendment process.

It’s clear, though, that extremists in the Democratic Party aren’t keen on doing things right. Why? They know that passing constitutional reforms is tough. Indeed, amendments almost always fail.

For them, that means there’s only one solution: cheating. They’re willing to treat the constitution like a downed tree to be cleared in order to secure the White House in 2020.

But if that’s what it takes to win, this Democrat would rather lose.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...l-college.html



Why is that the Dems had no problem with the Electoral College until after they lost?

The Electoral College has been a problem for the Union since constitutional ratification. The EC exists for the same reason the senate exists, to appease southern slave states in joining the union for united coast would be critical to fend off the potential threat of an invading foreign force. Sadly for the founding fathers, that never transpired, and instead those Deep Southern States attacked our country because they could not use the concessions made by the New Englanders and Midlanders to manipulate and magnify their popularity and way of life onto the growing country.

We should for the sake of democracy, remove the EC, as well as the Senate, and increase the amount of representatives tenfold. No longer should we be subject to a rigid, conservative social hierarchy that praises authoritarianism and brutality.

[cubby]

[I]In the midst of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, many Americans have likely missed coverage of a growing storm in the world of politics. It’s a scheme recently promoted by the far left of the Democratic Party – including the New York Times and activist Michael Moore – to deny President Trump reelection in 2020.

/shrill snip

Why is that the Dems had no problem with the Electoral College until after they lost?

Why is it you only look into the opinions of those that agree with you? Your post above is just more of your biased shrill. The "Left" and most thinking adults have been trying to get rid of the EC for decades. It's an outdated system that doesn't reflect the will of the people, makes some votes worth more than others, and keeps others from voting because they feel their vote won't count.

Your biased is highly entertaining, however.

[JohnBrown1917]

>Dems
>far left


lol, I wish.

[kail]

Very unlikely to happen, you'd need 3/4 of the states to ratify and the majority of those would lose influence

Pretty much this. The EC atm gives certain citizens more voting power than others. We all know the EC is mathematically scewed, but no President is going to dismantle the system he/she won from nor will the legislators of smaller states want to diminish their voting impact.

It stays until the stars align and the legislative and executive branch unanimously want it fixed.

[Jeezy911]

Good luck making these changes with non existent governmental influence.

[Grapemask]

Bad Candidate: While supporters of the compact highlight that Clinton won more total votes than Trump, they fail to mention that 14 Democratic nominees before her have managed to win the Electoral College – and thus the presidency. That includes a biracial man named Barack Hussein Obama who won twice during the nation’s war on Islamic terror.

In other words, Democrats didn’t have an Electoral College problem in 2016. We had a candidate problem. Our constitution shouldn’t bear the burden of punishment for the mistake we Democrats made in nominating a deeply flawed individual.

This isn't exactly stellar logic, despite it being correct about the candidate. It ignores that the electoral college has been problematic before, and more importantly, that it is getting worse over time as populations shift and expose its many, many flaws - some of which are a result of how our political society has changed. To say something is fine because it's worked fine before is one of those stupid things most people aren't dumb enough to vocalize.

[BuckSparkles]

Obviously. They had no problem with it when Obama won. Freaked out with Bush, no Problem with Bill Clinton.

They are just mad every time they lose. And praise it every time they win.

[Kujako]

They've never had the EC actually matter for them in the same way. When Obama won he won the popular vote in addition to the EC. Same with Clinton.

Ah, but Trump says they didn't!

[Daelak]

Obviously. They had no problem with it when Obama won. Freaked out with Bush, no Problem with Bill Clinton.

They are just made every time they lose. And praise it every time they win.

Grievances against the EC goes back to ratification of the constitution. Concessions made to Southern slave states who had no intention of embracing democratic values, only to pursue their slave empire ideals to California and South America.

[cubby]

Obviously. They had no problem with it when Obama won. Freaked out with Bush, no Problem with Bill Clinton.

They are just made every time they lose. And praise it every time they win.

Actually, and this is a common theme with you, reality begs to differ. The people who want to abolish the EC have always wanted to do so - regardless of the winner. What you fail to point out is that in 2000 and 2016, the winner actually got less votes than the loser - in both cases a Rep over a Dem.

The EC is a backwards voting method that, again, makes some people's votes worth more than others and marginalizes even more because some states (TX/CA) are "always" going to go for one party.

[UnkLegacy]

Obviously. They had no problem with it when Obama won. Freaked out with Bush, no Problem with Bill Clinton.

They are just made every time they lose. And praise it every time they win.

Right. Because Obama won the popular vote both times. Bill Clinton won the popular vote both times. Bush lost the popular vote the first time, but did the second time.

You don't happen to see a difference? It's rare that the EC does not match the popular vote. Before Bush's 2000 win and Trumps 2016, the last time the EC did not match the popular vote was in 1888.

[Dontrike]

Obviously. They had no problem with it when Obama won. Freaked out with Bush, no Problem with Bill Clinton.

They are just made every time they lose. And praise it every time they win.

Been in issue since its inception and you only single out the last two decades. Might wanna try harder to not be so wrong.

[Sormine]

Watch the video below to understand what is wrong with the electoral college. Most alarming is the part that begins at 4:15, and also take note that this video came out in 2011, before all this political hackery about the electoral college started in modern debate.

[BuckSparkles]

Right. Because Obama won the popular vote both times. Bill Clinton won the popular vote both times. Bush lost the popular vote the first time, but did the second time.

You don't happen to see a difference? It's rare that the EC does not match the popular vote. Before Bush's 2000 win and Trumps 2016, the last time the EC did not match the popular vote was in 1888.

Sorry CA can't win you the election every time.

[Sormine]

Sorry CA can't win you the election every time.

nice non-argument.