Posted on 06/28/2016 5:20:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
I guess they would say that only elites care about proper usage. I think standards still count for something.
I don’t see what your issue is. If people’s stated goal doesn’t match their actions, then perhaps they’re not telling the truth about the goal. To define the Left’s goal as achieving and exercising power over others fits their actions perfectly.
And the first time this happened, it would be dead on arrival. The courts would vacate this so fast, heads would spin.
The left makes much hay over "voter disenfranchisement". If a state in which the majority voted for candidate A were to instead vote for candidate B, the result would be the mother of all "voter disenfranchisement" lawsuits.
...why would the left hate referendums? Doesn't it claim to represent "the people"? Isn't "power to the people" one of the most popular sayings of the left? Isn't the American left trying to abolish the Electoral College precisely because it isn't directly representative of "the people's" will? ...The answers explain a great deal about the left. First, the left cares about "the people" as much as the Soviet Communist Party cared about the workers. For the left, real people are either political fodder or, when they support the left, useful idiots. The left loves power, not people.
That’s what SHOULD happen.
Some law professors have noted that the plain language of the Constitution empowers the states to select their electors in whatever way they choose. Whether they are pledged to a party, or to a popular concept was never addressed, because such an outrage apparently hadn’t been contemplated.
When an argument reaches a hypertechnical and politicized Supreme Court, who knows what would happen? “Original intent” or “Plain reading” of the language?
That's true, but it takes a real twisting of the Constitution to turn that into "the electors can vote for whoever they choose".
Today, someone could win the popular vote by simply getting everyone in California, New York, and a few more states on the east or west coast to vote for them. Combine high turnout in those states with normal (i.e. low) turnout everywhere else, and that's an achievable result. I'll leave it to the reader to imagine a campaign strategy that would achieve this.
The Electoral College was created for a very specific reason: to prevent this from happening. A candidate for President must build a coalition of states with a majority of electoral votes. Anyone that whines about the Electoral College wasn't paying attention in class, or is just unhappy with the outcome.
If one thinks an elector can vote their conscience, then I would ask: "why doesn't the Electoral College hold a second vote in case of a tie?". Per the 12th Amendment, the election (for President) is instead held in the House of Representatives. There's no opportunity for an elector to select an alternate.
Yes, it takes a real twisting of the Constitution’s original intent. And, yes indeedy, if the National Popular Vote Initiative were to be employed (or attempted), the campaign, and the voting fraud, would be epic.
I’d be very surprised if that is true. I know David a bit and I can’t recall him coming down on the side of ‘equality’, but I could have missed it. My only real irritation with David over the years has been some attacks on paleo-conservatives but other than that he’s usually way better than the vast majority of neocons. In fact I don’t think I’d include him among the neocons, he’s sort of sui generis like James Burnham.
I think David Horowitz is terrific, but I remember him as being a writer who identified “equality” as the primary goal of the Left. Could be I’ve gotten my analysts all in a muddle, though.
My personal view is that what leftists want most is freedom from constraint, to act as they choose at all times with no consequences, natural, social, or legal. For some this means freedom to act on their desire to control, injure, or kill others without restraint. For others, it means the freedom to do basically nothing, while having all their wants supplied by “society.”
“but I remember him as being a writer who identified equality as the primary goal of the Left.”
Well you remember accurately, but he certainly no longer holds to the values of the Left. Nearly a Paul on the Road to Damascus conversion. IMO opinion Dennis Prager holds on to far more liberal baggage than David Horowitz.
I agree on both points.
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.