NY Times calls for end to Electoral College

The Hill ^ | 12/20/16 09:00 AM EST | Rebecca Savransky

[Olog-hai]

The New York Times is calling for an end to the Electoral College.

Americans would prefer by overwhelming majorities to elect a president using a popular vote system, the newspaper’s editorial board said in a piece published Monday.

“They understand, on a gut level, the basic fairness of awarding the nation’s highest office on the same basis as every other elected office — to the person who gets the most votes,” the editorial said. …

[zeugma]

IT actually makes a lot of sense for the NYT to argue against the Electoral College. Without it, a person could run for president, and visit exactly 3 states, and still win the election. NY, CA, and TX. Even amongst those 3 states, you’d really only need to campaign in a handful of cities. This would be a big boost to the voting power of those 3 states.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Gotta give props on that graphic. Delicious tears!

[Olog-hai]

Texas? With their historical voting against the liberal agenda? Romney won Texas four years ago, and McCain eight years back.

Illinois downgraded?

[zeugma]

Just looking at raw votes from major cities. They've got Dallas, Houston, and Austin. You could probably do better by replacing Texas with Illinois. However, add all 4 of those states together, and you've got enough.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

NY Times calls for end to Electoral College

I call for an end to the "free" RATaganda "press".

[ShivaFan]

FOX News wins the popular vote among viewership of news.

So that means the rest of you, NYT, CNN, MSNBC et all, don’t count.

So that means FOX News gets to run all news media as President of News. More to the point, Hannity and O’Reilly are number 1 on FOX, so they are Prez and VP of all News Media since they won the popular vote. The rest of you don’t count squat.

Also it means only FOX polls count, and those polls say the majority of Americans want the EC.

So there.

[knighthawk]

Funny how these leftist idiot thought the EC was the best thing ever when Hillary was set to win it!

[sargon]

One man, one vote— per state. That's how the system works. It could be said to be ever so slightly anti-democratic.

The Founders had a healthy and historically sound aversion to pure democracy (mob rule). Specifically, mobocracy has a reliable track record for disregarding the Inalienable Rights of individuals, both those in the minority and the majority. Sometimes the "passions of the mob" need to be restrained in subtle (or not-so-subtle) ways.

Most Americans, of course, are totally oblivious to this bedrock American principle, due to the fact that our Leftist-controlled education system has been turning kids' brains into confused mush for several decades.

The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency represents an enormous opportunity to set a new course in so many areas for America— and not merely swapping Left wing authoritarianism for Right wing authoritarianism, which is doubtless what some on the Right would prefer.

One of the most promising features of Donald Trump's cabinet nominations and appointments is the introduction of several individuals with healthy libertarian strains— Steve Bannon, for example.

This bodes well for all Americans.

Hopefully, President Trump and his team will not squander this golden opportunity they've been presented with. I hope any remaining skeletons in Donald Trump's closet are insufficient to derail the absolutely revolutionary process on which we have all embarked.

I have no doubt that some policies of the Trump administration over the next 4 years will anger conservatives as much as other policies will anger liberals, but I see that as a very positive thing, because true freedom and opportunity will always have aspects which alternately delight some and frighten others.

As this process occurs, my fervent hope is that everyone realizes that tolerance of differing opinions (inasmuch as Liberty remains the paramount consideration) will ultimately lead to what I call the "greatest common denominator" of Freedom, which, to my mind, is preferable to any and all "lesser" visions of it.

Donald Trump's America needs to be the most free, not the least. If that is our goal, then all the challenges that come along with that attitude will be well worth facing. I have no doubt that such an effort will require sacrifices from all of us— but only those sacrifices which do not compromise Liberty, and which also empower the People to "form a more perfect Union"...

[cynwoody]

One of the many advantages of the state based electoral college system is that it isolates vote counting issues to a particular state. So you can have a recount in one state, or a dispute about what happened in one state. But as soon as you have a nationwide popular vote election a recount means you have to recount the entire country.

An obvious improvement is to count the electoral vote by congressional district, instead of whole-state, winner take all. It should be one EV per CD carried, plus the state's two extra for winning the majority of the CDs, or in the event of a tie in CDs, the state's popular vote.

And get rid of the electors! The electoral vote should be automatic. No need to sweat reprobates like Chris Supren! His existence generated needless news, distracting the public from the real issues.

Consider California, an overgrown state, if ever there was one. HRC won California's popular vote and, thus, all of its 55 electoral votes. But if the electoral vote were by CD, DJT would likely have won the fifteen of California's 53 CDs that elected Republican congressmen.

A proper system would compensate for California's disproportionate size and would firewall the effect of its lax immigration policies. The same goes for other states housing fraud-ridden, old-time Democrat urban cesspools. At any one location, cheating would at most win one or two CDs, instead of a whole state.

[cynwoody]

You need a Constitutional amendment to replace the EC, hence you need the states that are not NY, CA, and FL to ratify it. Good luck convincing all the non-coastal states to give up having any say in presidential elections.

You need three quarters of the states to ratify an amendment. States other than the population-center states benefit from the Electoral College. Those states can be expected to vote against repealing the EC and for efforts to improve it.

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution: two thirds of both houses of Congress or two thirds of the states, acting in a constitutional convention. There is one way of ratifying an amendment: three quarters of the states.

So, given that, I welcome the Democrats' proposal to improve the Constitution to better express the will of the people. We just need three quarters of the states to ensure any reform comes out right.

[trebb]

Then they should have zero problems if the Republican Senate and House pass everything Trump wants and then some.....

[Olog-hai]

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production. …

— Communist Manifesto, Ch. 2

So how does one avoid a “battle of democracy” other than to make sure the conditions do not exist to fight such a battle in the first place? The Founding Fathers certainly knew how despots thought.

[jonascord]

I was thinking more along the lines of getting rid of the 8th amendment.

With the "living Constitution" interpretation of the document, if we dispose of the EC, couldn't also suspend annoyances like a strict demand that we not draw and quarter traitors, or for that matter, that the "traitor" definition be expanded to include registered democrats?

Ever notice how 'them unintended consequences' tend to bite the Left, a lot? (Frankly, it's because they are THAT F#CKING STUPID, but this is a different discussion.)

[jonascord]

I love that look. He is a true sociopath. He would nuke the world, wouldn’t he?

[Salvation]

Sorry, Slimes we don’t want to be ruled by the big cities.

[Olog-hai]

Given the political positions of the Democratic Party, Article 3 Section 3 would already apply to them. Not to mention Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2.

Of course, nobody wants the kind of thing that the Democrats want to end up with, except the Democrats:

“Dictatorship is power based upon force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is power won and maintained by the violence of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie — power that is unrestricted by any laws.” … — Lenin

This is their endgame.

[M Kehoe]

Dear NYT:

Personally, I don’t want to be ruled by a president you states choose.

Why? Because ya’ll are nucking futs.

5.56mm