Posted on 12/11/2017 10:14:06 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
The electoral college was developed by some of the most intelligent political minds ever! Just because the commie/fascists think they’re smarter than everyone, just like every commie/fascist before them doesn’t mean they are. It’s in the constitution for a reason, thank God! This is the reason!
We took the squirrel rifles off the wall after our objections to being taxed without being represented were ignored.
And nothing mentioned in the article about widespread voter fraud, the president of the USA at the time urging such fraud, etc.
Now Townhall is suggesting that .. most of the country wouldn’t have a problem being disenfranchised in favor of urban lefties and foreigners here illegally?
Do these `reporters’ receive any education in history, politics or informal logic? (OK, that may be the problem.)
Rachel’s out of her everluvin mind!
National popular vote basically turns the nations fate over to the handful of the biggest cities that can amass the greatest vote piles, by hook or by crook. The penthouse archipelago rules as the ancient city states ruled their surrounding rural lands.
The biggest argument in favor of a national popular vote is that it eliminates the influence of immigrants (legal or illegal) in the electoral vote allocation among the states. California would have 50+ electoral votes even if there were only ten people in the entire state who are U.S. citizens and are registered to vote. A better approach to dealing with that issue is a constitutional amendment to eliminate non-citizens from the apportionment of House districts, combined with the large-scale deportation of illegals from every state.
When the 17th Amendment was debated in 1912, Senator Chandler from New Hampshire predicted the Progressives’ next move: calls for direct election of the President and a growing uniform net of smothering national laws.
Ever-more democracy isn’t perfume; it is poison.
This is such an absurd statement.
The Electoral College is a firewall that keeps vote fraud contained the state. By moving to a National Popular Vote, all the fraudulent votes will count nationwide.
In California alone, the fraudulent votes cast by non-citizens are likely to be more than all the votes cast in New Hampshire or Vermont or Rhode Island or Delaware, or any other small state. Instead of the "windfall of electoral votes" being smaller, it will be the entire Electoral Vote majority.
-PJ
A popular vote is unconstitutional. End of story.
Trump won the popular vote outside of California. He also won the popular vote outside of LA and NYC. We will become Panem from the Hunger Games.
More dilution of states rights.....
Get back to me when there is proof that EVERY Vote counted is confirmed to come from a LEGAL Voter, every one.
Get back to me when there is a guarantee of ZERO Voter Fraud.
Truth be known, even of you get back to me I will still be against Direct Democracy and I will continue to support the Electoral College.
One Word: Greece.
A lot of California Trump supporters didn’t even bother, because they knew it was a foregone conclusion.
I still say, if it were a true popular vote election, Trump wins anyway.
Hunger Games. Populous Capitol enslaves the Districts.
“The system isn’t broke so there’s no need to fix it other than to make it tamper and fraud proof. “
“Excatly ! How ‘bout we let the states decide how they want to manage this Rachel”
I think if you re-read that article, you may soften your take a bit. I definitely understand those remarks, as I’ve been a popular vote opponent from way back, seeing the Electoral College as the Constitutional mandate. This is the first time I’ve doubted my thoughts on it...
The author’s point is,
1) It may soon BE broken, and both parties have been working hard to break it (to their advantage) for over 200 years.
2) This is because the framers never wanted the “winner take all” Electoral College that it has become, with only a few swing states really making a difference.
and
3) Some states, even RED ones, are determining to go proportional even now, as allowed by the Constitution, and as soon as enough of them do it, the change is made. Since the right of the states to determine how to name electors is vague in the U.S. Constitution, there is no violation here.
Take another look, this could actually turn out well, as it makes rigging things more difficult.
It's got groove it's got meaning
” the framers never wanted the “winner take all” Electoral College that it has become,”
Can you provide any authority for this remarkable statement?
Hmmm...we live in a Republic.
I understand that we don’t want to replace our Republic with a Democracy. I get it, and I agree. But national vote for the President doesn’t make us a Democracy. That would only happen if we all voted on all of the Congressmen and Senators. How about we put the Senate selection back into the hands of the states? That would help a lot.
Nope. I merely stated that it was the point of the author. If she is wrong, OK. But there’s nothing in the Constitution prescribing the “winner take all” approach, either. It says the states can decide how they select them, correct?
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.