NY Times calls for end to Electoral College

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

[BobL]

What’s IRONIC is that the Electoral College FUNCTIONED PERFECTLY in this election. After a win by Hillary, coupled with an almost-certain Amnesty (along with courts, and lots of other things, like censorship) would have turned this country into a One-Party State, or, as the left would say, a dictatorship. The difference in this election was that it was the last election we would be competitive in if we lost...whereas the left, even though they seem unable to understand it, still can fight back and compete in the future. They are far from finished, assuming that they move a bit more to the center (and I sure hope that doesn’t happen).

By the way, if you end Illegal voting, via voter ID and citizen verification, I think getting rid of the Electoral College may result in a push for our side. If California were jettisoned, then getting rid of the Electoral College might actually work in our favor.

But regardless - the Electoral College always seemed like a strange formality to most of us...but we just learned the GENIUS of it, SO KEEP IT!!!

[hal ogen]

I “call for” picture-ID voter I.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Then end States altogether and the Senate. We can call our new NY Times endorsed nation The United Socialist Sh!thole of America.

[joethedrummer]

THIS is exactly why democrats need to be defeated in EVERY election.

They have NO grasp nor concern for our Constitution and this proves that.

They are no longer the ‘loyal opposition’; their ‘policies’/agend are a cancer to this nation.

[Lazamataz]

Cool, New York Times!

Now, let’s get busy:

1) Propose an Amendement to the Constitution.
2) Have it voted for by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, and have it signed into law by the President, OR
3) Hold a Constitutional Convention and get it approved by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

Your move.

[SkyDancer]

Again, the morons at the NTSlimes do not know the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. No doubt their learning came from a uber-liberal college. Trump won 3,084 counties out of 3,141 counties in the US.

[sauropod]

Carlos Slim sez Make Mexico Great Again!

[Publius]

...and have it signed into law by the President

The president is not involved in the amendatory process delineated in Article V.

[realcleanguy]

Democrats, only people who when they lose they want to change the rules

[faithhopecharity]

Interesting ! Well, the crosswords include “leader born in Hawaii” questions. And the demanded answers are always the Kenyan-born islamonazi infiltrator-—and never Queen Liliuokalani. So — the puzzle editor isn’t Too un- PC!

[Olog-hai]

Oh, they have a grasp of the Constitution, and especially the limitations on centralized power; however, that is exactly what they hate about it. And that hatred goes quite a way back, too:

… “Corporations grow on every hand, and on every hand not only swallow and overawe individuals but also compete with governments.The contest is no longer between government and individuals; it is now between government and dangerous combinations and individuals. Here is a monstrously changed aspect of the social world. In face of such circumstances, must not government lay aside all timid scruple and boldly make itself an agency for social reform as well as for political control? ‘Yes,’ says the Democrat, ‘perhaps it must.’” …

— Woodrow Wilson, Socialism and Democracy, 1887

That is the Democrats’ baseline, not the Constitution.

[Lazamataz]

My bad.

[Iron Munro]

The NY Times wants to eliminate the election of a president by the Electoral College?

No problem if that’s what they really want.

They just need to obtain a copy of the US Constitution somewhere.

(Hint - Check with the library or send away to Hillsdale College for a free copy you can keep)

Then read Article 5.

Article 5 spells out the exact procedure to do that in easily understandable language that even a democrat should be able to understand.

[Redleg Duke]

I concur. End the New York Times!

[namvolunteer]

34 posts until Bob put up the right answer.
Congratulations, Bob.

[Gator113]

No, I haven’t even seen one, not for at least a decade.

Good.....it needs to die.

[Lisbon1940]

OBAMA is a very crossword friendly name (not for his politics but the letter cmbination), so it is not surprising he shows up a lot. The editor allows certain sex- and race-related references that some commenters have called out.

[Bryher1]

Let's say that somehow America got to this point without ever having the electoral college. We don't know how the earliest elections would have turned out because they didn't even count the popular vote back then, but assume that in 1824 Andrew Jackson won instead of John Qincey Adams, in 1876 Samuel Tilden became president instead of Rutherford Hayes, in 1888, Grover Cleveland became president instead of Benjamin Harrison, in 2000 Gore instead of Bush and this year Clinton instead of Trump.

So the Democrats would have now ruled America since 1992, for 28 to perhaps 32 years: Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Gore, Obama, Obama, Clinton, Clinton

Now let's say the republicans, after the election of Hillary, propose an electoral college so that the smaller states might have more impact, more say, more representation... what would the Democrats say?

I propose we say the same thing to them now about doing away with the electoral college as they would say to us in that imaginary world if we tried to form an electoral college. They would tell us to get wet.

[MarMema]

These people are completely stupid and unAmerican as can be.