Libs tried to hoodwink the public and pull this change off.
Thank goodness it didn't work.
Our Founding Fathers had a specific reason for developing the Electoral College. It was to give better representation to states with smaller populations. It has worked pretty good for 200+ years.
The last thing we need is a bunch of self-interest Libs tinkering with it for their own gain. This includes those like Hillary Clinton who see the change as very advantageous -- as it would have allowed the biggest cities (which just happen to contain most of the liberals) to decide most presidential elections.
They'll be back.
She interned for a Congresswoman dealing with "women's issues"
Obviously, sorting mail and brewing coffee qualifies Breeanna the dance major to attempt to subvert the Constitution! Another victim (albeit a minnow) of Potomac Fever attempts to spread the disease nationwide!
The Soros Plan fails in two more states.
Face it, the odds of convincing the 38 least populous states to just abandon any and all power they have at the national level is a joke.
They can't assign votes based on NATIONAL popular vote--it wouldn't pass Constitutional muster.
The Founding Fathers had the right idea with this system. Can you imagine Florida 2000 every four years? Can you say, "political gridlock"? (Yes, even worse than now.)
The Electoral College was one of the three great compromises of the Constitutional convention.
First we have F. D. Roosevelt trying to pack the Supreme Court and now the dems trying to get rid of the Electoral College.
Do you see a trend?
It is a very sad comment on today's "educated" persons that it got 51 votes to dump the Electoral college.
Apparently the lack of American History being taught in today's schools has worked.
The electoral college protects the states with smaller population, like Montana and the Dakotas.
snips:
He's baaack! Sen. Ken Gordon is at it again. After failing to undermine the Electoral College in the last session of the state legislature, he's hoping to have better luck this year with a Democratic majority in both houses and a Democrat as governor. Senate Bill 46 would include Colorado in a compact of other states that pledge to cast all their electoral votes for whichever presidential candidate gets the most popular votes, nationally, regardless of who gets the most votes in our state.
In other words, Coloradans would sacrifice their own choice for president to a scheme designed to kill the Electoral College.
North Dakota's House voted 60-31 Thursday to defeat the plan. In the Montana Senate, it lost 30-20.
The votes were lot closer than I would have thought.
So, why even vote if your state's electoral votes go to a nationwide winner? Well, because in a really close election, your one vote could be the one vote that put your candidate into the majority?
That already is a lame argument on a state basis, but in a vote of 120 million people, we think that one vote will change the election?
And if it does, how do we do the recount to see?
There's a really big problem with these laws. Do any of these people actually KNOW when the final popular vote counts are certified in this country for presidential elections?
I believe if they look, they will see that there were still votes being counted months after the election was over. Each state has rules about the vote spread that allows them to certify results before all the votes are counted (for example, there's no need to rush the absentee ballot counts if there are 10,000 absentee ballots and the winner is ahead by 100,000 votes).
But if you have to wait until the nationwide popular vote count is certified before you grant your electors, how are you going to force California to certify a state-wide popular vote, with all recounts done, in time for your Colorado electors to be properly instructed?
There's many good reasons for electoral college, one of them is that it makes each state responsible for counting their own votes and picking their own electors. It doesn't matter if Colorado has liberal voting laws with 3-week pre-election voting, or if Oregon has no-questions-asked absentee balloting, while some other state might require 2-month advance registration and in-person that-day voting.
Because each state's voters are equally effected by the law, and their laws only effect their own choice of electors.
If you passed a law allowing nationwide popular vote to govern, a state could easily make it simpler for more of their own people to vote, giving them more absolute power to pick the presidency. And the bigger states would have an easier time of it, and cities would be overrepresented moreso than they are now.