Posted on 11/13/2016 12:32:58 PM PST by ColdOne
Former Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis says his party must do everything in its power to abolish the Electoral College.
“Hillary won this election, and when all the votes are all counted, by what will likely be more than a million votes,” he wrote of the Democratic presidential nominee in an email to Politico Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT “So how come she isn’t going to the White House in January?” the 1988 Democratic standard-bearer asked. "Because of an anachronistic Electoral College system that should have been abolished 150 years ago.
“That should be at the top of the Democratic priority list while we wait to see what a Trump administration has in store for us. So far, all we know is that dozens of lobbyists are all over the Trump transition -- a strange way to drain the swamp.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Don’t forget to dip their finger in ink to prevent double voting.
“Reality to Dukakis: that would take a constitutional amendment that would have to be ratified by 38 states. So remind me, how many states did Hillary win again?”
Exactly. Math is clearly not Dukakis’ strong subject....
Well, maybe if he stays there past 1/20/17. The new boss can keep him there. Start yo the new embassy there? }:-)
.
Hitlery got well over 1,000,000 illegal alien votes in Kalifornicate.
I see what you did there....LOL
if 48 States would follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska and allocate their electors based on their congressional districts.
trouble is, PA, for instance, cast 288,000 more votes for Obama than Romney in 2012; there are 18 CD’s in PA, and I think Dems carried six or seven, meaning romney would’ve received eleven or twelve EV’s for losing a state by that margin of votes...ME and NE are small population states; it’s one thing for them to divvy up an EV, quite another for a state like PA...I don’t know what the solution is...
They were bragging before election day how Trump might win the popular vote, but hillary was going to win the electoral votes.
See, the electoral college is great when the dems win by the EV count, but when they lose, by golly the EV needs to be abolished.
Screw them.
Wow... you can just feel the testosterone oozing off that guy. </s
“Funny how that works ain’t it?”
REALLY!!! They forget that in 1992 Bill Clinton lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral College!!!
Clinton didn't lose the popular vote -- he won it. He just didn't get a majority.
Neither did Hillary! If you add the Trump vote to the Stein vote to the Johnson vote to the Egg McMuffin vote I think the total is greater then the She-Beast. (At least it was the last time I did it! A day or so ago!)
Nope.
It keeps a lot of voters important to the campaigns they would otherwise ignore.
Yet another anti-Constituion POS.
One of the daffiest of daffy democrats believes he knows more than the Founders.
Massacusetts is a corrupt democrat party sh*t hole, and Dukakis fit right in.
The GOP could win a straight up vote but they would have to change advertising campaigns. I would worry about civil unrest from closing of the polls and complete tally.
This is a Republic, not a Democracy. But we can compromise, and agree to the nationwide institution of the Nebraska Plan. Under that system, two Electors are elected statewide, and the rest are elected one in each Congressional District.I don’t think the Democrats will agree; it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Romney would have won under that plan.
In any event, the next improvement in elections should be to require, rather than forbidding, photographing each voter as s/he picks up her/his ballot.
If we do that, the Democrats biggest will have a lot more to worry about than resentment of the Electoral College.
But the most serious point about the popular vote is the existence of more than two candidates on the ballot; Hillary didn’t win a majority of the popular vote - only a plurality. In the presence of more than two candidates - and in principle, each voter could write in her own name, and nobody would even have a plurality - there is no uniquely suitable way of selecting the winner.
The Constitution provides a robust mechanism for selecting the successor to the current POTUS every four years. The POTUS is elected by the states, not the people. The state legislatures could appoint their states’ Electors without any popular election.
In fact, I plan to write my legislator again on the issue of the criteria for being placed on the ballot; Hillary obviously violated the Constitution when she was an officer of the US while also being a principal in the Clinton Foundation, which was soliciting and accepting contributions from foreign governments. According to the Constitution, that is not to happen without specific congressional consent. Any state has the authority to keep any such person off the presidential ballot inside its borders.
In the light of this past election campaign, my state legislature should consider requiring at least a cursory physical exam to assure that no obvious indications of disabling neurological disorder exist in a person applying to be on the presidential election ballot in the state. Anyone has a right to privacy and would not have to submit to such a requirement; but no one has the right to stand on that principle and still receive consideration by the voters of my state. The right of my state to establish that rule is not reviewable, in the sense that the state does not even have to conduct an election at all.
Interesting! Thus, in three runs for the presidency, a Clinton has never received a majority of the vote.
We have a republic, not a town hall style democracy.
The electoral college is part of keeping it that way.
It makes it much more difficult for a small number of high-population states to overwhelm an overwhelming majority of states in electing a president by mere popular vote.
A nation is a lot more than merely the numbers of its people. It is the villages, towns, cities, counties and states that go into making it a republic of united states, not a Greek style democracy.
The founders read history and saw that direct democracy only worked when it was closest to the people. The larger the area direct democracy was tried on it usually failed and led to a dictator or a dictatorial clique.
Republicans, by elections in the states, hold 69% of 99 state legislative bodies and 62% of the governors mansions. That is they have “popular” mandates from the people in over 60% of the states. Trump won pure and simple because he won more places in the nation - more villages, towns, cities, counties and states. That’s what a republic of states is about and that is not what a “national popular vote” is about.
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.