Posted on 11/16/2016 7:04:44 AM PST by C19fan
While Donald Trump resoundingly won the electoral college — the state-based “point system” we’ve used in presidential elections for more than two centuries — Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by about 780,000 as of a week out of the election. In other words, more Americans wanted Clinton to win, reason enough to revisit the wisdom of using the electoral college to determine elections. But a larger, more important argument is often overlooked in this ongoing debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Getting rid of States means Senate would need to be apportioned like House of Representatives. Think about that. You can make an argument that it should be anyway.
These idiots, all trained in the public school system and that includes way too many voters today, don’t realize that if we were to go to democratic majority rule it’s highly likely that EVERY muslim would be kicked out. In fact, if a majority voted for slavery, it would be brought back.
Not true. The vote can be certified at that point. But the counting goes on; eventually, all votes will be counted.
If you look up the official totals for the 2012 and 2014 elections, they will include every vote cast.
Interesting solutions.... But not what I’m talking about. How do we regain the high ground from a philosophy standpoint with the population in those areas?
Yes. They are inculcated in Leftist propaganda. Some are perpetrators of the Leftist misinformation campaign, but I’m betting most are just regurgitating what they are being fed.
“Hearts and minds”. We gotta figure out a way to change them or we will eventually be changing those “hearts and minds” via “two to the heart, one to the mind”.
Or that the legislature would become unicameral. No more Senate, and the House would be doing what the Senate used to with respect to its unique constitutional duties.
Amazing how, if you want to read something really stupid, you can always pick up a copy of the WPost. A once-great newspaper, now nothing but bird cage liner.
I like how you think. The Wife and I have already produced our 3 replacement units, but I regret that I can no longer help in that regard.
The hate states when they are losing the ideologicl battle and love them when the states are helping them win the ideological battles, as occurred with gay marriage.
Dear NYT: How about a compromise solution?
Maybe we should just not allow PA, OH, WI and MI to vote in the Electoral College unless they vote for the Dem Candidate. That’s probably unconstitutional but it would certainly pass muster with a Clinton appointed Supreme Court.
The advantage of this plan is that it would not require totally rewriting all of those silly state laws like the ones for Driver Licenses and local taxes and such into Federal Law. That would cost us a few $Trillion and I’m not sure we can actually afford it at this time. Maybe it could be reconsidered a few Trump Years from now when we are in better shape financially.
When the UN was forming, the USSR wanted a vote for each of its 15 heavily subjugated republics. We said “Sure, why not? And we want a vote for each of our (at the time) 48 sovereign states.” Case closed.
I think of the US as similar to the EU.
And that gives you a feel for what I think of someone who thinks we should get rid of states.
It will be easier to get term limits on congress than get rid of the states. For starters, the states would have to vote to get rid of themselves.
There is a lot of lunacy coming from people who should no better these days.
Wrong, if they counted all of the absentee ballots (which they don’t) and eliminated all of the illegal alien fraud Trump won by 5 million votes, guarantee it ..
I would never want to get rid of states as legal entities. In fact, I have always believed that more power should be vested in them because that's the way this country was founded. I just also see a value in diminishing the influence of 4-5 large states in our presidential election process.
Before Lincoln, the U.S. was referred to as “These” united states. The name actually had a meaning. It was several nation/states that gave up limited sovereignity to a single, federal government.
In fact, it was so limited that in order to build the “interstate” highway system, they had to use the excuse that it was to better move our military around at times of war.
And the FBI generally only gets involved in solving crimes when the criminals cross state lines (excepting things like bank robbery).
Before Lincoln, our nation was like a brick wall. the bricks were states and the mortar was the FedGov holding them together. Now it is like a wall of mortar with 50 marbles stuck in it.
It needs to be rolled back, severely.
Exactly, Enterprise. However the real question is whether the Compost or the Slimes should be first.
Abolish the Constitution, and you abolish the concept of a President, a Congress, and a Judiciary.
What is left is a tyrant who rules over all.
People just don't seem to understand federalism. There are the people, there are the several state governments, and there is the federal government.
The President is the executive of the federal government, and is therefore supposed to be the arbiter of interstate issues, including a unified foreign policy and a common national defense.
The states were supposed to be the day-to-day government of the people. The people vote for their own state governments, and also vote for their representative to the House of Representatives in the federal Congress.
The states vote for their federal executive, and also for their ambassadors to the Senate in the federal Congress. The states vote for the executive via the Electoral College.
Therefore, the Electoral College is a body of the states, not of the people's "popular" vote. Eliminate the Electoral College, and we might as well eliminate the concept of states altogether. The 17th amendment already gutted the Senate.
Is that how liberals/globalists see the United States in the 21st century, as a stateless land mass with a single overarching government over all?
Just "America?"
To these people, nations are nothing but occupied land. They ignore that a national culture emerged to mobilize a people to improve their lot, defend against encroachers, and educate their young to sustain what their predecessors have built in order to pass it on to their own posterity.
Today, all these people see is a territory of resources to exploit, and an indigenous peope who are in their way. In order to overthrow us, they must first disconnect us from our history by making nationalism a sin.
-PJ
The usual “we lost, lets change the rules.” argument from who else, the losers.
ComDem Insanity!
I’m ok with this, as long as we don’t get rid of any commonwealths. /s
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.