Skip to comments.4 arguments in defense of the Electoral College. Here's why they're wrong (Barf Alert)
Posted on 04/02/2019 10:27:01 AM PDT by Beave Meister
For the first time in the countrys modern history, the existence of the Electoral College has become a campaign issue.
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren recently called for the abolition of the Electoral College, while other Democratic presidential candidates, including former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke and Sen. Kamala Harris, have said the Electoral College should be re-evaluated.
The Constitutions framers originally created the Electoral College as a way to filter the passions of the people through state-appointed presidential electors with better judgment. They assigned every state a number of electoral votes exactly equal to its number of members in Congress.
But back then, electors werent pledged to candidates so a state might have five votes for one candidate, and four for another. By the 1820s, the system had already evolved beyond what the framers intended. Each party chose pledged electors; if a partys candidate won the most votes in the state, that partys electors would get to cast all the votes.
This winner-take-all electoral vote system continues today in 48 states. In two states Maine and Nebraska presidential candidates win one pledged elector from each U.S. House district they win, and win two pledged electors if the presidential candidate finishes first statewide.
(Excerpt) Read more at journalstar.com ...
1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487. 2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16. 3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes. 4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country. 5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles. 6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election. Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) dont and shouldnt speak for the rest of the country. And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts."
Full Title: You’ll hear these 4 arguments in defense of the Electoral College. Here’s why they’re wrong
Right now, whether or not Democrats cheat in New York or California is less relevant because they'd win those states anyway. But as soon as you get rid of the EC, you've created a huge incentive for ballot-stuffing in states that are controlled top to bottom by a single party.
What they really want is for the loose voter id standards of California and New York to control the Nation.
They pretend that voter fraud is a minor problem when in reality it is already a huge problem.
Where did the author come up with this idea?
The Electoral College was never about subduing the "passions" of the people, because the people were never going to directly elect the President.
The President was to be the executive of the federation of states, therefore the states were to choose the President.
The states were to be the governing bodies of the people, therefore the people were to choose their governors and state legislatures.
And their solution, by massive coincidence, is the National Popular Vote Compact.
Poor Dems can't seem to get their illegals voting in the correct places t the correct times, so they just want to erase that location requirement altogether.
That’s exactly right.
I don’t know why all these states’ legislators or governors are going all out to dissolve the electoral college. If they do, then their state (through its counties) will have absolutely no say against the large and easily manipulated populations of a few coastal cities which are mostly counties themselves.
It's a comment I've made, too, although less succinctly. Under a popular vote rule, vote disputes would last for months, if not years, and ballot stuffing would be vastly encouraged.
Beave Meister who writes for some newspaper is a lot smarter than our nation’s founding fathers.
If only they had had his wisdom to consult with, the Constitution could have been much better. /s
Three Nationality Harris is not a natural born citizen.
Natural born citizens are NATURALLY citizens because they only have ONE nationality.
The most pernicious thing to hit the law books is the National Popular Vote Bill, recently passed here in Colorado. If 100 percent of Coloradans vote for one candidate but the other candidate wins the overall national vote, all of Colorado’s electoral votes go to a candidate no one in Colorado voted for, hence disenfranchising every flipping voter in the state. Any Colorado legislator who voted for this bill will never, ever get my vote again.
Small states entered the Union under an agreement that allowed them a disproportionate amount of influence in the Senate, which is a part of the Electoral College scenario. If the rules are now changed, this violates the original agreement, and they should be allowed to leave the Union if they wish. If the Popular Vote issue becomes a reality, I could see about 30 states wanting to leave the Union.
The Blue states can control who'd be president if the EC was eliminated.
Let’s sum this up another way. There are three major population areas (New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago) that have the potential to affect the outcome of a national election. Each of the cities are located in states that welcome illegal immigrants and encourage all residents to vote, so it’s probably safe to assume illegal votes may influence elections. Should their national candidate win, one can assume these big states will expect to be rewarded. Each of these states is already heavily in debt and saddled with unsustainable pension costs for the future. Barring a financial miracle, these vote producing states will be looking to the federal government for a bailout at the expense of smaller states. Why would any less populous state, especially those that are fiscally sound, surrender their representation and potential benefits to more populous but fiscally irresponsible states? This is how the argument against against the National Popular Vote should be framed.
I had another chart showing the most populated cities that also could determine the president in a popular vote; can’t find it.
I just heard that today on YouTube: Electoral College for Dummies.
80% of Maine....the Second Congressional District...was carried by candidate Trump in 2016 by 10 points.
Maine apportions it’s Electoral votes by district, so 80% of Maine should be red on that map.
Well I didn’t do the map but I get your point.
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.