Skip to comments.In Defense of the Electoral College
Posted on 04/02/2019 4:06:38 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
There is no shortage of issues upon which Republicans and Democrats can respectfully disagree. Were silly people sometimes though, and respect seems to come at quite a cost. There are a handful of issues, however, on which Democrats are so profoundly and dangerously wrong that I find myself incapable of empathy.
Beto ORourke, Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Cory Booker, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and more have come out for eliminating the Electoral College. This is an unequivocal deal-breaker for me. It seems one of the only Democrats with any sense is the anti-establishment progressive, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who isnt completely ready to pull the plug on one of the founding safeguards of our Republic.
But Gabbard seemed to jab at fellow Democrats, saying, I think its unfortunate that too often these calls for changes come about by the side that has lost or suffered as a result of the Electoral College.
Before laying out my defense of the Electoral College, let us first take a look at their logic for its retirement.
One Person, One Vote
Democrats feel that the Electoral College is anti-democratic because it does not give everyone an equal vote in the election of a US President. But this isnt an argument. Its a fact. Secretary Clinton received 65,853,516 votes (48.18%) and President Trump received 62,984,825 votes (46.09%). More Americans didnt want Donald Trump to be President than didnt want Hillary Clinton to be President, and yet Donald Trump became President nonetheless.
And this upsets some people.
Democrats believe that a President should be elected by the people, not by electors sanctioned by each of the fifty states in accordance with a method of selection of their choosing.
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingdrift.com ...
Without the Electoral College, the president will be selected by NYC, SF and LA.
It absolutely IS "anti-democratic". So is the Senate. So is the Supreme Court. So is the amendment process.
Democracy is killing this nation, we need less of it, not more.
That's not the problem.
The problem is that, to coordinate, count, and certify a "national popular vote", the national government is going to have to be given control over voting in the States.
Therefore, the people in charge will be given control over the process to replace them.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Supporters believe the compact is legal under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the plenary power of the states to appoint their electors in any manner they see fit: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”.
But their Compact may run into a problem because they are not allowed to have a Compact:
Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”
Something to consider:
In 2016, Trump recieved 3.0 million votes in CA while Clinton recieved 5.6 million in that state. In OH, Trump recieved 2.8 million votes to Clintons 2.3 million votes.
What is striking is that, under this compact, OH would still award its votes according to the CA vote total even if ALL of Clintons 2.3 million votes went to Trump given him a unanimous victory in OH.
Can people in OH be that stupid?
It appears so.
Problem is, with the size and far-reaching (into states' matters) grasp of the federal government and the corresponding severely weakened condition of states' rights -- in combination with the high level of historical and political ignorance of far too many Americans (as the study of American history, displaced by current events and "feelings studies", is barely touched on in many public schools), on the altar of "equality" most voters do not see the United States as a collection of states (i.e., a Republic). They see it as a single large country that is governed and controlled by a strong central national government. This is why so many people are unable to apply the clear World Series analogy to the purpose of the Electoral College vote.
“The Reoublic died to thunderous applause”. - Star Wars
Which of course is the idea.
They don't have to do that anymore.
NY, CA, IL, NJ, and MD just need to keep the GOP candidate off the ballot.
For a long time I have had the opinion that the Left is pushing a two-prong approach —
1) If they can elect Socialists, that’s swell. They can make laws for free health care and free college, and high minimum wage and all of that. It will destroy this country (Cloward-Piven) and that’s what they are going for. So, electoral success certainly helps them.
2) If they can’t win elections, but can push normal people over the edge, they will spark a Civil War. Their current policies are abhorrent and not likely to win popular support — but they still fray the fabric of our society. Our social contract is at risk. This will also destroy our country, even if the Socialists don’t have much success in elections.
Winning elections is a slow approach.
I think most on the Left would actually welcome Civil War as a quick way to destroy a country they hate. They don’t have to win the war, you know. They just need to destroy the country.
everything is not based on CA or even NY, other Dem populated areas.
There are plenty of voters all over the country and a “national popular vote would have to tally all votes. If Reps could get large numbers in all other states it wouldn’t matter how much Dems get in just a few states.
All people should get out and exercise their right to vote. Problems happen when just certain groups get out and others don’t bother or don’t in “protest” which is stupid (or fraud, harvesting etc)
Oh no, it would not.
States still control their own elections. NJ has already said they will not allow Trump on their ballot.
Under an Electoral College system, this is not really a big deal. But under an NPV, you can bet that CA, NY, IL, MD, and MA will follow suit.
Remember - State Legislatures have SOLE AUTHORITY over appointment of Electors.
Once they put in an NPV compact and it is approved, the next step is denying ballot access to "white supremacist" parties (i.e., Republicans) in the big blue states.
"But wait", you say, "that's unconstitutional".
No, it is not. No one has a right to a ballot listing. Look in the Constitution to find "major parties" and "presidential elections". They are not there.
Excellent point. If CA, NY, and NJ keep Trump off their ballots, then about 9 million votes for Trump disappear leaving a gap twice as large. Where would the Republicans find enough votes to overcome that disadvantage?
Good information. Thanks for posting it CCguy!
When do leftists respectfully disagree? I mean that.
The groundwork was laid 100 years ago: Amendment 17.
About the difference between 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, maybe? About whether the tax rate on the rich should be 70% vs. 80%?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.