Posted on 11/16/2016 11:28:17 AM PST by C19fan
Donald Trump's collected tweets on the subject of the Electoral College are a work of transcendent numbskullery.
"If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y., Florida, and California, and won even bigger and more easily," he tweeted on Tuesday morning, perhaps realizing that losing the popular vote raises questions about the legitimacy of his presidency, let alone any "mandate" he might have. "The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!" he tweeted six minutes later.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
*And* you have to be a landowner in order to vote.
See how they like them apples.
owned.
Those who want to eliminate the Electoral college and replace it with popular vote elections should go for it.
All they have to do is convince two thirds of Congress and the Senate to approve a proposed constitutional amendment to do so.
Or, alternately, have two thirds of the states call for constitutional conventions to do the same.
Then three quarters (38) of the states have to ratify the amendment.
Then the ratification is certified by the Office of the Federal Register and the proposed amendment becomes part of the US Constitution.
Pretty simple.
They had better get started because it is a lengthy process.
Notice that when democrats get beaten or get caught lying, cheating, stealing, scamming they never strive to become more responsive to the public or to become honest and ethical?
Their immediate reaction is to figure ways to change the rules or find new ways game the system so they win.
Or to do a better job of hiding their criminality.
Look at Donna Brazile as an example.
Via leaked E-Mails she was caught multiple times cheating by feeding advance information to Hillary about debate questions.
Donna’s reaction wasn’t to apologize and promise to be honest and ethical in the future.
No, her reaction was to say she would become more informed on cyber security.
Presumably so that E-Mails about her future dishonesty would remain confidential.
Why yes it is, without congressional approval.
Good points. It’s been some time since I trolled lefty sites looking for COS support and didn’t find any. It’s a common charge by Article V opponents, and made by Publius Huldah herself in a speech last month.
See, I was paying attention in law school!
Right, if the 50 states were to put this to a vote, there is no way 38 states would vote to reduce their own clout. If anything, they would sieze the opportunity to strengthen their clout.
There are currently 435 representatives distributed to the states in proportion with state populations, and 100 senators distributed equally, regardless of population, 2 per state.
538 electors are allocated to the states in the exact same way, except DC gets 3 based on population.
This means on average, a state is entitled to 4.35 times as much representation owing to its population size than representation owing to statehood.
In my opinion, this 4.35 to 1 ratio still advantages heavily populated states. I think a case could be made for the states to have equal representation, regardless of population size.
If one imagines an analogy of a club one is considering joining, where families pool together to collectively provide services, programs and entertainment, it seems fair that certain issues should be proportional to family size, such as the amount contributed for food or other consumables. However, many decisions, and therefore representation, would and should be regardless of family size (population).
I know if I had a family of 2 and was considering joining a club where some families had hundreds of members, I would not join if voting and representation was proportional to family size. Why would I?
Think dynamically!
Without the Electoral College, the campaign would have been fought entirely differently. But the result would have been the same. E.g., without the EC, my vote would have actually mattered!
But seriously, if the 'Rats want to change the Constitution, let's compromise.
Let's vote by congressional district. Whoever wins the most congressional districts wins the election. Only if there's a tie in CDs should the popular vote matter.
But our opening position should be voting by CD, with each state's two extra votes going to the state's winner by CDs or, in the event of a tie, the state's popular vote.
The compromise might be to drop the two extra votes per state. But, under no circumstances should it be by raw popular vote. Too many practical problems involving recounts, vote fraud, etc. And CDs retain a modicum of geographic distribution.
In the current election, GOP House candidates won in 15 of California's 53 districts. Voting by CD, that would likely have been 15 more EVs for DJT. Instead, California contributed 55 EVs to Hillary.
It's time to abort the Electoral College.
It's time to celebrate the founder's vast wisdom in crafting the electoral college so the entire country participates in electing the only person elected to represent the entire population.
A petition on change.org is asking the Electoral College Electors to break faith with the voters, and elect Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump on December 19. The petition currently has more than 4 million signatures.
If you are concerned about that, you can sign an opposing petition, that asks the Electors to keep faith with the voters:
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.