Baloney. It just gives Dems a free pass to flood the ballots with more illegal voters. Whoever wrote this was smoking choom.
Also coming from ILLINOIS, I agree 200%.
California and New York will determine the election if that’s the case.
The Democrats are probably already stealing 20 million votes. They can steal a lot more in Californicate if they want to. No point now, however.
How about we stick to the Constitution?
BULLSH*T!
Surprisingly, our founding fathers were a lot smarter than Rachel Alexander.
National Popular Vote = Instant Civil War.
Leave USConstitution alone, unless there is a _very_ good reason. Our fathers were a _lot_ smarter than most modern USAians.
We don’t. Each state has an election that is decided by popular vote.
The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy, Constitutional Convention, May 31st, 1787
She’s nuts.
Unconstitutional. Next.
This article is absolute information warfare and propaganda. A national vote would allow California alone, with its sanctuary policy, to decide the Presidency because it would simply allow all Mexicans, who would vote for a weak President (i.e. a demo_rat), to vote in their elections. This is why the vote in Los Angeles county was so absolutely one sided to the demo-rat candidate in the 2016 Presidential election.
JoMa
National popular vote exponentially increases the efficiency of vote rigging in the big cities.
Stupid. It basically makes the coastal cities rule the nation. And it turns us into a single nation rather than a Republic of United States.
Electoral College was good enough then, it is fine now. No WAY ‘popular vote’ - unless people dip their fingers in purple dye.
She (this conservative) was shilling this same nonsense on the Townhall forum as well, to wit:
‘The National Popular Vote Plan would award all of a state’s electors to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all fifty states.’
IOW, Hillary Clinton would be president now.
I thought we (ahem) conservatives—as opposed to the GoP=e—decided that Hillary as president would be a bad thing .. ?
Nothing mentioned about the Democrats’ massive voter fraud, Obama (ineligible under Art. 2) urging illegals to break the law by voting (`No one will investigate, your lawbreaking is confidential’), etc. and so on.
Just, “Toss out the electoral college; Hillary should have won.”
The writer is a witch. Burn her! Burrrrrrrn herrrrr!
I doubt her sincerity, whoever she is. The answer to her proposition is no.
“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” [James Madison, “The Federalist No. 10,” 1787.]
After a quick search, I see that Rachel has written some good articles. Maybe she is sincere. But the answer is still no. She should study history more, especially the letters, papers and speeches that preceded our Constitution and were considered for constructing it.
States should not be allowed more electoral votes with the excuse that their populations are larger. Some founding fathers also warned against that.
The original intent for the electoral college was to have each state set up a number of electoral districts equal to no. of Reps + Senators and have a popular vote for each elector, rather than having the President and Vice President on the ballot. But the Constitution, as written, left the selection of electors up to each state’s legislature, so that’s why we have winner-take-all states.
I think the E.C. should go just the opposite of Rachel Alexander’s idea — not abolishment, but having the individual electors on the ballot in electoral districts.