Posted on 08/26/2019 5:30:09 PM PDT by Kaslin
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has found a new enemy: The Electoral College. The freshman Democrat appears to be taking a break from defending her anti-Semitic colleagues, pushing the Green New Scam, and other socialist policies to bash an institution that’s become the latest subject of rage for Democrats who simply cannot let the 2016 election go. In our history, there have only been five times where the winner has won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. And yet, we’re still here. And let’s use the word “lost” loosely for 2016; Clinton didn’t break 50 percent in that category either. Well, let’s to the reasons why AOC hates this institution (via )
Ocasio-Cortez made her argument on … an Instagram story that includes her driving along a deserted highway and quipping, "many votes here, as you can see." Very efficient way to choose leadership of the country. I mean I can’t think of any other way, can you?" Ocasio-Cortez says, before going on to cite a report from New York Magazine that argues the defenses of the system that determines the winner of presidential elections are flawed. The freshman lawmaker said the Electoral College is a "scam" that has a "racial injustice breakdown" undermining the votes of people of color. "Due to severe racial disparities in certain states, the Electoral College effectively weighs white voters over voters of color, as apposed to a 'one person, one vote' system where all our votes are counted equally," she says, before pushing back against the argument that eliminating the Electoral College would give big states too much power.
Ocasio-Cortez made her argument on … an Instagram story that includes her driving along a deserted highway and quipping, "many votes here, as you can see." Very efficient way to choose leadership of the country. I mean I can’t think of any other way, can you?" Ocasio-Cortez says, before going on to cite a report from New York Magazine that argues the defenses of the system that determines the winner of presidential elections are flawed. The freshman lawmaker said the Electoral College is a "scam" that has a "racial injustice breakdown" undermining the votes of people of color. "Due to severe racial disparities in certain states, the Electoral College effectively weighs white voters over voters of color, as apposed to a 'one person, one vote' system where all our votes are counted equally," she says, before pushing back against the argument that eliminating the Electoral College would give big states too much power.
No Clinton has ever won a majority of the popular vote.
Funny, my (now much degraded) memories of my 10th grade civics class included the electoral college. Even then, the instructor appeared to be a bit befuddled in his explanations, but it gave me a general idea of its purpose. After reading that part of the Constitution and giving a bit of thought, it’s purpose and the genius of it is clear...to one living at least the center of the Bell curve.
Of course, to six sigma to the left Occasional Cortex, we’re talkin’ quantum physics.
These days, perhaps it would be simpler to engage in a runoff election.
Top two electoral vote getters go for the election.
Would the civil war still have happened if Abe Lincoln (top electoral getter) and John C Breckinridge (second place electoral vote getter and soon to be sore loser / civil war starter) had a run off election as the only two candidates ?
Perhaps she should try to complete Electoral Kindergarten first.
She doesn’t even use apposed/opposed correctly.
The word “lost” as in “lost the popular vote” is used “loosely” - but not because neither candidate got a majority of the popular vote.
It’s used loosely because there is NO national popular vote for anyone to win or lose.
We hold 50+ elections for president - states and DC - NOT one national election. Using the misnomer “national popular vote” is an intentional distortion of our system by enemies of state sovereignty as a check on federal power - which was the main purpose of the EC.
Resist the weaponized language of our enemies every chance you get!
The Federal Government is a tool of the States. This allows for cooperation to get some things done collectively.
The States, not the people, choose the Executive for the Federal system.
Some states respect their people, some states dont.
If some state chooses their electors and demands they all vote a certain way, thats for that state and its people to figure out. Courts have ruled Ellectors are free to choose.
Intesting battle.
Keeping the Electoral College also necessitates allowing for state foolishness.
Says the chick from the party that uses “Superdelegates”.
BINGO
These days, perhaps it would be simpler to engage in a runoff election.
Top two electoral vote getters go for the election.
AOC has it within her power as an elected Representative to change the way we vote for President. All she need do is draw up (or have her clever staff draw up) a proposed Constitutional Amendment and present it to the House. If she can convince 2/3rds of her colleagues to vote for it, it will then go to the Senate where it will again have to pass with a 2/3rds majority. Hardly fair since the Senate by its very nature is ‘undemocratic’.
But she ain’t seen undemocratic yet. 38 of the 50 states will have to agree to the change. That means 13 of the empty-road flyover states can stop her brilliant correction in spite of how enthusiastic the voters of CA or NY may be for her idea. The idea that the legislatures of WY, AK, SD, MT, ND, etc. can thwart this shows how undemocratic the US is. Oh, wait—we’re a representative republic, not a democracy.
(The same process applies to your idea of a runoff election, of course).
Primaries are same way, winning
delegate slates.
Imagine:
“Democrat party is giving up on delegates.Instead a national election will be held in mid June.Winner
of most popular votes on that one day will be
the party’s nominee.”
If it hadn’t been for Ross Perot William Jefferson Clinton would have never won in 1994, or whenever he ran for his reelection.
“Top two electoral vote getters go for the election.”
Sounds too much like California’s law that guarantees a Republican is not on the ballot in state elections.
Wow, the Justice Democrats write great scripts for Cortez, don’t they?
I’d love to see what she could come up with on her own.
Sad to see a House representative so ignorant of the Constitution.
Or anything else for that matter.
Another dem with an IQ under 80.
5.56mm
She knows it’s not a real college, right?
That’s the point. Without her puppetmaster she is lost.
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.