Posted on 11/28/2016 9:13:13 AM PST by Jim Robinson
After complaining for months that our electoral process takes too long, now some commentators apparently want it to take even longer. Lawrence Lessig has written an article for The Washington Post saying that members of the Electoral College should ignore what they were actually elected to do, and should take it upon themselves to give the presidency to Hillary Clinton.
His argument is that since Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she is the “people’s choice.” Other commentators have made similar claims, and given the general angst and unhappiness that fills so much of the commentariat these days, we can expect this meme to float around for years to come. So let’s clarify a few points right now:
1.) No one, including Hillary Clinton, was trying to win the popular vote. If the candidates had been trying to win the popular vote, almost everything about this election would have been different. The candidates might have picked different running mates. They might have emphasized different issues. They almost certainly would have campaigned in different states, run different commercials, and held different events. Does anyone think the Trump campaign would have largely ignored California and New York if he needed to win the popular vote? Of course not. He played under the rules as they are written in our Constitution — the same rules that governed the Clinton campaign — and he won. Trying to declare Hillary Clinton the winner because she won the popular vote is like saying that we should decide football games by which team has the most yards, or a baseball game by which team has the most hits...
(Excerpt) Read more at lifezette.com ...
In addition to blatantly disregarding the Constitution, one relevant test of the argument is whether, if the situation were reversed, you would see Mr. Lessig write the same article.
I think not.
Meanwhile, the b*tch STOLE the popular vote with illegal aliens voting (and Obama urging illegals to vote), rigged voting machines that flipped votes from Trump to Clinton, multiple votes cast by RATS in the names of deceased people and fake names, etc.
I would also point out, that Hillary got a minority of the popular vote.
Yes she got more votes than anyone else; she go a plurality not a majority. About 52% of voters voted against her.
The Clintons didn’t bitch about the electoral vote when Bill got only 43% of the vote in 1992, on his way to a clear electoral vote win.
The difference can be attributed to illegals voting for Hitlery.
Trump adviser, Newt Gingrich wrote in his book “Real Change” that companies like PayPal, Amazon, Stub Hub or FedEx do billions of transactions with over 99% accuracy and they should be considered as contractors to handle federal elections in a fair and legal way.
When that comes to pass the democrats are going to lose the ability to carry secured districts achieved through illegal vote manipulation.
It is far more egregious than that. The better analogy would be that a game is decided not by the number of hits, but by the number of fans that came to the game.
I would also point out, that Hillary got a minority of the popular vote.
Yes she got more votes than anyone else; she go a plurality not a majority. About 52% of voters voted against her.
The Clintons didn’t bitch about the electoral vote when Bill got only 43% of the vote in 1992, on his way to a clear electoral vote win.
Excellent commentary. One you won’t see or hear about from the MSM
Excellent point.
BTW, Trump has overtaken Romney’s total in 2012.
Or declaring the team winner of the Tour De France the one with the most riders finishing and not the team with the overall fastest collective time.
P.S. always enjoy your Tour thread so had to throw that one in :):):)
Remarkably observant piece. Thank you.
Zactly.
She actually lost the popular vote by 6 million votes.
Yeah, she got the plurality of votes by a single candidate but, she lost by a wide margin of some 6 million votes which in total represents some 70.6 million votes compared to her 64 million votes...depending on they stop counting
Well actaully and factually no one won the popular vote because we do not conduct a popular vote for the President in America
>>>>Lessig has written an article for The Washington Post saying that members of the Electoral College should ignore what they were actually elected to do, and should take it upon themselves to give the presidency to Hillary Clinton.
This would be a coup - literally be an act of war. Amazing that they think they could do this without bloodshed.
The process IS unitary and that’s what Trump and Hillary both played to. Jill and Hill are screaming to yank one piece out, change it in isolation, and call that “integrity.” That’s not integrity. That’s a Frankenstein monster complete with ugly stitches.
Anyone believing the popular vote should decide the election, by the same reasoning, should believe that less populous states should give up their senate seats to more populous states. It just doesn’t work that way.
If “red states” didn’t have representation, it would clearly be the recipe for another civil war.
Trump has also overtaken GW Bush’ 2004 vote total.
The key words in that statement is "united" and "states". Each state chooses its electors based on the popular vote of that state.
Should the POTUS *ever* be elected by a national popular vote, then that POTUS would NOT be president of the "united states", but rather some other national entity. One that does not exist.
Well, there's a problem right there. The president is elected not by being the “people’s choice” but by being the choice of the states.
It all involves a little thing called the Rule of Law, something that libs tend to ignore when it suits them.
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.