Posted on 10/11/2018 12:06:03 AM PDT by beaversmom
Now that the Senate has confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, some Democrats are turning their fire on the idea that each state should be equally represented in the upper chamber of Congress. "The idea that North Dakota and New York get the same representation in the Senate has to change," NBC national security reporter Ken Dilanian tweeted.
Others, like GQ correspondent Julia Ioffe, took issue with the Electoral College, which allowed Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump to place four justices on the Court, even though Bush and Trump lost the popular vote in 2000 and 2016, respectively.
One politician who endorsed Ioffe's argument is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the democratic socialist running to represent New York's 14th Congressional District:
It is well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery’s power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic.
Ocasio-Cortez isn't the only high-profile Democrat to embrace this view. "I passionately believe it's time to abolish the Electoral College," Hillary Clinton wrote in The Atlantic last month. Clinton's view isn't surprising. After all, she earned nearly 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016, but still lost.
In their criticisms of the Electoral College, Ocasio-Cortez and Clinton fail to grapple with the reason we have such a system in the first place. By preventing the majority from getting its way all the time, the Electoral College ensures that views from every part of the nation are represented. That way, those in high-population states with large cities aren't the only ones who have a say. Instead, as David Harsanyi wrote in a November 2016 piece for Reason, the Electoral College helps "create moderation and compromise":
To some extent, the Electoral College impels presidents and their political parties to consider all Americans in rhetoric and action. By allowing two senators for both Wyoming, with a population of less than 600,000, and California, with a population of more than 38 million, we create more national cohesion. We protect large swaths of the nation from being bullied. We incentivize Washington, D.C.—both the president and the Senate—to craft policy that meets the needs of Colorado as well as New York.
This is especially important when considering that small states—even sparsely populated ones—play important industrial roles, particularly in agriculture. If those states "become marginalized and then coerced to embrace the policies favored by the people in urban areas, the nation loses valuable resourcefulness, imagination and brainpower," Harsanyi noted.
Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote–based system might also have some unexpected results. Clinton won the popular vote in large part due to her margins in New York and California, where Republicans knew their votes didn't matter. Changing the system might motivate some of those Republicans who stayed home on Election Day to come out of the woodworks. Texas Democrats might do the same. It's impossible to know who would have won in 2016 absent the Electoral College, as both parties—to say nothing of both campaigns—would've likely had very different strategies.
It's easy to blame the system when you don't win. But that doesn't mean the system is actually broken, or that there's an objectively "better" one we should be using.
I posted a long time ago that folks are underestimating this woman. Hide and watch, wait and see.
Having taught school for MANY years, I UNDERSTAND how she is going to appeal to those who are just as ignorant as she is. She is VERY dangerous. Do NOT underestimate her.
Exactly what I saw in teenagers I taught in school. Guys, this woman is going to eventually plug in to a very young base. She is dangerous.
The Electoral College is the firewall that keeps the hordes of illegal aliens voting illegally from gaining complete power.
Which, of course, is why the tip-stealing bartender is opposed to it.
with out the Electoral College power would be more concentrated in to the hands of the elite leftist totalitarian fascists who she aspires to join.
with out the Electoral College power would be more concentrated in to the hands of the elite leftist totalitarian fascists who she aspires to join.
with out the Electoral College power would be more concentrated in to the hands of the elite leftist totalitarian fascists who she aspires to join.
___________________
I just tweeted this and it was immediately removed.
To GAB I go
Eggzaktly.
There goes her NY-14 election chances. /s
Foolish hoe... Not only does our Republic need to keep the "Electoral College", but we also desperately need to repeal the 17th. amendment.. Political power needs to be taken away from DC. and moved back to the states..
every village has its idiot.
The most obvious effect is that the last fraud standing wins.
Recounts in a close election under national popular vote could go on for years!
It ‘Undermines’ Democracy
Change the Constitution! There is a process to do that! But that will require them to convince citizens of the small states like North Dakota to vote to allow themselves to be screwed by the big states. So good luck!
Well, it is a good thing that we don’t have a democracy, Ms. Occasional Cortex.
Yes, there Is an Electoral College elector for each senator and each state has two senators regardless of size. But the commentators fail to note that each state also has one elector for each member it has in the House of Representatives. So California’s overwhelming size is more than represented among its electoral delegation. The electoral college defeat of Clinton was due to the “winner takes all” allocation of electors in most states. Some states changed their allocation of presidential electors to directly proportional to the popular ballot after the 2016 campaign. I’ll leave you to guess which party controlled those state’s legislatures.
So complaining about the Electoral College after losing a confirmation vote in the Senate is, to be frank, complete stupidity. The fact that the socialist poster girl from NYC is saying it reveals what an inexperienced, ignorant novice she really is. The source of Hiliary’s complaint is, of course, her never ending bad grace and continuing heartburn from losing the 2016 presidential election. I hope it proves fatal to her and soon. Political “analysts” making such comments only lowers the already low esteem accorded to their profession. And the mindless repetition of their uninformed commentary shows how “democratizing” media does not benefit the public discourse.
To be properly framed, this complaint should be about equal representation of each state in the Senate. The framers of the Constitution wanted it that way to prevent the larger states from completely dominating the legislative process. They also wanted the senators to represent the interests of their entire state as a whole, not just a particular district as representatives do. In fact, before the move to direct election in the early part of the 20th century, senators were appointed by state legislatures, thereby making them actual agents of their state in the national legislature.
Equal representation in the Senate means the smaller states views must be taken into consideration. That acts as a brake on ill-considered or badly formulated legislation from being rushed through Congress. However, as history has repeatedly proven, this measure alone cannot prevent Congress from acting stupidly if it is determined to do so.
The House is already directly proportional. Sort of. Divide 330 million by 50k to see how big the House should really be. Fixation with keeping representatives to 435 has already diluted the value of each vote and is the direct cause of the need for “big money” in politics. The Senate would serve no purpose beyond being an echo chamber if it was directly proportional as well.
However, all that is required to change that is a constitutional amendment. Fat chance of such an amendment even passing the Senate. Never mind the states ratifying it.
It’s those pesky small states again!
So, in the end, it’s just “professional Democrat” sour grapes at another loss being amplified by the “me too!” MSM.
...and thank {Diety} it does. Because in a democracy that mob rules, regardless of how ignorant and manipulated they are. I realize that is exactly what the leftists want. Fortunately we live in a Republic, so I am protected (somewhat) from them.
She’s so stupid I’m surprised she isn’t campaigning on making the electoral college free for everyone and forgiving electoral college loans.
“If she understood the Electoral Collefe....”
We have a representative democracy, better yet, a representative republic.
Totalitarian governments have "democracies" that are guided by mob rule. Mob rule is supported by Democrats today because they sponsor violence against those they hate. Democrats have to lie about their real agenda to get elected.
The cops in Portland recently just sat and watched an old man and old woman being assaulted by violent Antifa demonstrators. That is an example of mob rule (as seen in the past in NAZI Germany).
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.