Posted on 09/14/2020 9:02:18 AM PDT by Kaslin
Democrats plan to end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court with radical judges. These changes would give the left license to radically transform the nation. There is, however, another threat they’ve dusted off ahead of the Nov. 3rd election that—if executed—wouldn’t just be transformative, but totally destructive. They want to abolish the Electoral College. Destroying this institution will mean the end of national campaigning (and the engagement, negotiation, and localized promises that go along with it). What politician will ever again stump in Kenosha or Breckenridge? What will a vote get you in Idaho or Montana? It will mean fewer crucial checks on voter fraud. It will mean tyranny by the coastal hives; by California technocrats and by Wall Street corporatists. It will mean a nation highly susceptible to one-party rule and inevitably totalitarianism, which, if still called America, would be America in name only.
There are innumerable articles arguing for and against this institution, yet given the present state of the Democrat Party—majoritively made desperate and hysterical by their upset four years ago, the failure of their Russian collusion hoax (advanced by their acolytes in the mainstream media), bad post-modern thinking, a disastrous Obama administration, and the inefficacy of their deep state coup—it seems prudent to raise the matter once more. After all, it is better to discuss this now when only parts of America are on fire rather than when all is set ablaze by the Dems’ guerrilla fighters upon their realization late November that Trump has won 362 electoral college votes despite losing the popular vote. Plus, if that oracle of daytime-programming wisdom Joy Behar is calling for the Electoral College’s diminution, clearly someone needs to respond.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Ballot box ... Jury box ... Ammo box.
The electoral college is an essential part of the bargain under which the Constitution was proposed and ratified in the first place. It was a compromise between those who preferred election of the President by Congress and those who preferred election by a national popular vote. Election by national popular vote was championed by a few prominent delegates at the Philadelphia Convention—Wilson, Morris, and, to an extent, Madison—but was resoundingly rejected every time it was put to a vote. In 1816, Rufus King proposed a constitutional amendment in the Senate for a national popular vote, but as far as I can tell, it went nowhere.
Today’s proponents of a national popular vote seem to assume that direct popular election is the only natural way to choose a chief executive, when in fact there are few major Western “democracies” who chose their chief executives in that way. The chief executives of Britain, Italy, Germany, and Japan, and most other Western countries, are chosen by their legislatures. Really, only France has a nationally-popularly-elected chief executive. Even that is a relatively recent development—before 1962, the President of France was elected by an electoral college. The only other major power with a popularly-elected chief executive I am aware of is Russia, and is that really the example we’re going for?
Most importantly, a national popular vote makes no sense for the United States today. It presupposes that the people of this massive, sprawling collection of states are one mass of people, when that clearly is not the case. Such a nation-state cannot be held together if part of it believes it does not have any say in how it is governed. The last time a whole section of the country believed it had no say in the Presidential election was in 1861 when Lincoln won without winning a single Southern electoral vote. Slavery was the root cause of the Civil War, but if you want to know the immediate cause of secession, that was it. Today, if the President is chosen solely by the masses in the coastal cities, there is no longer much reason for the vast interior to remain part of the union and subject themselves to the will of people with whom they share few values in common.
The bottom line is that the election of the President by national popular vote had very little support among the Founders, has little precedent in the history of Western democracy, and makes no sense for the government of a vast, continent-spanning federal republic.
They have wanted to destroy the E.C. for years. It is their biggest wet dream. That and packing the Supreme Court with 13 judges and choosing the next four as young massive liberals.
bookmark
This should be it’s own thread.
Ohhhhh, ok. Thanks.
It would be worse than that. There would be an arms race between states to increase the number of popular votes from that state. What would stop California from enfranchising every illegal immigrant in the state? Or to give the vote to convicted felons and everyone over the age of 12?
One of them. Ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments contributed, along with about 50 SC decisions. Executive branch usurpations. The consistent cast of evil characters. Public preoccupation with meaningless music, tv and sports. General stupidity. The same reasons why Rome fell.
This subject - what the Dems have been and are planning to do to this country - should be Topic #1 every single day, certainly here at FR. They are literally trying to destroy our Republic. They get their way, and I guarantee that these Leftists will, within 10-15 years, have stolen individual wealth throughout the nation, imprisoned tens of millions and murdered at least several million of us. They look to what Lenin and Stalin did as MODELS - and poorly-executed ones, at that. With the power that modern imaging technology and computers give them, they could target and capture their opponents very quickly and in large numbers. We know what happens after that.
And if this country goes, so does all of Western Civilization...but probably not before a few hundred or more nukes get tossed about.
If we could get the other States to follow a similar pathVoluntary not required, sorry for that. Thanks for calling me to task on it.
This problem, of ignoring states sure to go to one candidate or another could be fixed by states allocating their Electoral Votes by who wins each Congressional District, with the winner of the state overall getting the two extra EVs. Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that aren’t winner-take all.
The five or six smallest states would still be winner-take-all, but this would bring most states into play, but would never be adopted democrat-dominated state legislatures. Nothing in the Constitution requires ‘winner-take-all’.
Eliminating the Electoral College would be difficult, as it requires a Constitutional amendment. But ending the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court - snap easy.
And the D’s will do it first chance they get.
.............................................
Serious question: Dems have controlled all 3 branches at the same time, why haven’t they done it yet?
> Dems have controlled all 3 branches at the same time, why haven’t they done it yet? <
Interesting question. My guess: I think it’s because today’s D’s are way more radical than those from even 10 years ago. Bill Clinton was a centrist (kinda). And so was Hillary.
But today’s D’s are represented by AOC types. They are ruthless, and way to the left - look how quick they were to impeach Trump over nothing.
Biden and Pelosi are part of the centrist old guard. Will they be able to resist the “reforms” demanded by the AOC types? Not a chance.
http://articlevblog.com/2019/03/another-reason-to-keep-the-electoral-college/
“...the 12th Amendment will be changed...”
Not sure they need to go to all the trouble and further antagonize the conservatives they have to live with, like it or not, for a while.
Socialist dems have not done a good job demonizing things to set themselves up as having the superior theology. Since the 60’s, in particular, the liberals have drawn from Saul Alinsky’s playbook to create a “villain,” as some type of horrible, end of world person or people, to scare up votes for control.
I think the battle at the border to get illegals in as fast as they can is not for the illegals, it’s to get votes from under educated people using deceit even on them promising them something they can never have...freedom in this country. And I think the libs are about there where they can create the third world country they need to maximize their power and money. Poor uneducated people don’t need a whole lot more than what they had to be happy. California is a perfect example.
Then they don’t have to change the 12th amendment. They will have the numbers through illegals voting, as it is now, and is being ignored, to get the votes in the electoral college without all the fuss to upset anyone. And when the libs get into power in the states, they will “elect” their representatives to the college to vote lockstep with their population vote. And judging by how many illegals voted this last election, is the decision in each state going to be the truth especially if it voted the other way and they just.....change it? Hell...that’s happening now. Imagine the scale of it with the people to use as nothing more than numbers?
And until this manure goes public, the libs are trying to get rid of conservative politics in the media as it is the only real opportunity to get the messages out as our representatives are too busy covering their arse to rock the boat gainst the socialists. This is why I’m a conservative, but nor necessarily a republican. They are too busy trying to get Trump rather than their opponents, and enemies of the country, the socialist liberals in power...or perceived power.
rwood
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.