I should have take time to find a better source. What a shill piece, but I edited out most of the blatant NY Slimes lies.
Posted on 08/23/2020 1:46:00 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
...an extraordinarily close presidential election, mirrored national sentiment about scrapping an electoral system that allowed a candidate to win the presidency even while losing the popular vote.
That's odd, I don't recall any big stink about it in 1960, ya mealy-mouthed NY Slimes shill.
I should have take time to find a better source. What a shill piece, but I edited out most of the blatant NY Slimes lies.
Sounds like a bunch of bs.
The link is to the History Channel. How does the New Times figure into it?
Must have been 'bout 200 pages long. Not that the Slimes would EVER lie about ANYTHING! 😇
Definitely a misleading headline. Even if a proposed amendment had been passed by the Senate , it still would have been been circulated to the states for ratification.
Would three fourths of the states have ratified such an amendment back in the early 70s? Would that supermajority ratify such an amendment today?
Yup.
Nixon won electoral votes by 301- 191-46
Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace being the two he run against.
Popular vote went 43.4% 42.7% 13.5%
What is it with Dems not trusting electors?!
“... the Senate came five votes shy of breaking the filibuster...”
And then there were and are states that probably not ratify for the selfish reason that they don’t want the larger states deciding who will be President forever.
The wisdome of the founders when they created the Electoral College may be proven once and for all this year. The Democrats are doing their best to cripple our election system and foment chaos. Fortunately, their ham handed effort has to undermine the Electoral College which they cannot do, at least not this time.
The election of the President consists of 51 contests, one in each of the States and one in the District of Columbia. Even with the blatent voter fraud that we will see this year, these shennanigans have no chance of undoing the majority of those contests. Calfornia, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, and perhaps New York will see rampant voter fraud, but those states will vote for the Democrat no matter what, so the Electoral College may well save the Republic.
The major source appears to have been "Jesse Wegman, a member of the New York Times editorial board and author of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College". The EC was built in at the start as a filter to mitigate the bullying by a few large states of all the rest of the states. The author doesn't explain how maintaining the EC suppressed black votes (it doesn't), and avoids calling "malapportionment" Gerrymandering, which was invented or at the very least named for its best known practitioner, Elbridge Gerry, Masschusetts Democrat (naturally the wikiliars stress "Democratic-Republican", the Democrat party that Jefferson called "Republican" and which triumphed over the Federalist party) of the early 19th c.
Actually, it is 56 contests since there is an addional one in each congressional district in Nebraska (3) and Maine (2).
No offense intended, but I’m pretty skeptical of the source as well. But all that aside.... the Dems had better watch what they wish for. I love the electoral college for the usual reasons...keeping the less populated states from being disenfranchised, etc. But I will say this. If the electoral college were done away with, we might not have another democrat president for decades. Think about the 55-point headstart the Dems have at the beginning of each election in CA. If we were to do away with the electoral college, we’d get 42% of CA instead of 0%. Brand new strategy. GOP could narrow its resources to 6 or 8 big cities that we now ignore. Dems would have to broaden their resources to 1,000 or so counties. Awfully hard to swing votes in that great big red map of the U.S.
As soon as democrats lose an election, they start looking for ways to fix it so they can’t lose the next time. If popular vote gives them the win, that’s what they want. If electoral vote gives them the win, that’s what they want. If mail in voting and ballot harvesting allow them to cheat to a victory, that’s what they want. It’s all situational, never principled.
The Process of Amending the Constitution - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
Depends. When they win, it's "settled law" and those who complain are out to "destroy the Constitution".
And Nixon + Wallace’s 56.9% came close to Nixon’s amazing 60.7% in 1972.
It does have that effect, but it’s still a single contest in those two states, but they have chosen to apportion their electoral votes differently.
I think it was von Clausewitz who said, never interrupt your adversary when he's making a mistake. The NPV is the DNC's attempt to subvert the POTUS elections, but it looks like a colossal blunder to me -- knowing it's there would juice the Pubbie turnout everywhere (including dyed-in-the-blue states) forcing all those California electoral votes into the lap of the Republican candidate. The Demagogic Party rejected the real reform that was suggested, and came up with that. But imagine how they'd throw themselves on the ground and hold their breath until they turned blue if they manufactured a permanent Pubbie lock on the White House.
/bingo
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.
