Posted on 12/07/2016 5:01:51 AM PST by HomerBohn
A new Gallup survey shows that support for the Electoral College system is stronger today than it has been in many years. Following a controversial election that gave Hillary Clinton the popular vote while giving Donald Trump the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, many on the left have championed a constitutional amendment to abolish the system. But if liberals are more eager than ever to get rid of the Electoral College, Republicans have renewed faith in the system.
According to the poll, 47% of Americans want to keep the Electoral College while 49% want to get rid of it and have the popular vote decide future presidential elections. That’s almost right down the middle, which is a big change. In previous surveys, a clear majority of the public expressed a desire to abolish the Electoral College:
Such sentiment has clearly prevailed when Gallup asked this question twice in 2000 — after George W. Bush won the Electoral College while Al Gore won the popular vote — in 2004 and in 2011. In each instance, support for a constitutional amendment hovered around 60%.
From 1967 through 1980, Gallup asked a slightly different question that also found majority support for an amendment to base the winner on the popular vote. Support for an amendment peaked at 80% in 1968, after Richard Nixon almost lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College.
The turnaround in public opinion comes largely from Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Of these Americans, 54% supported deciding the presidency by popular vote in 2011. As of today, only 19% want to do away with the Electoral College. You probably don’t need a Harvard political science professor to explain what’s going on.
At the same time, you can’t just say, “Oh, well, of course Republicans like the Electoral College after they used it to beat Hillary!” It’s not that simple. Voters have been exposed to some very good arguments for and against the system over the last two weeks. Republicans know that all of Hillary’s popular vote advantage comes from one state – California. A state that grows more dissimilar to the rest of the United States with every passing year. Our country was designed as a union of states, not just one massive, singular democracy.
The Electoral College gives the people of “flyover country” a relevance they would begin to lose if we abolished it. That doesn’t mean one way is right and the other way is wrong, but it does mean there is more to think about here than who won or lost the last election.
There are 3141 counties in America. Trump won 3084 of them. Clinton won 57 of them. There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16. Clinton won the popular vote by anywhere between 1.5 and 2 million votes (that is if you count the illegals and dead people). In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of those counties as Trump won Richmond). Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country. These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Which means that — once again — the Democrats who have made its abolition their top priority are expressing their intention to govern against the will of the people.
They are granted the right to do so by their own overinflated egos.
Time for California to become a Separate Country, or perhaps give it back to Mexico.
There is a reason our framers set the state thresh-hold at 75% for constitutional amendments.
How many countries in the world chose their head of state by direct popular vote? Off-hand, I can only think of one-- North Korea. Iraq used to do it under Saddam Hussein.
Without it, klinton would have stolen the election with fraudulent votes. I am quite certain that a large percentage of her votes were manufactured.
“They are granted the right to do so by their own overinflated egos.”
You nailed a big part of the problem.
Or, less politely:
The RATs are public enemy #1.
The left’s idea of democracy is for every presidential election to be decided by Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and NYC. Everyone from anyplace else might as well stay home and not vote.
I saw this link cited on Hannity’s website.
Wonder what likely voters would say.
Actually, CA and NY. Trump is ahead without NY. NY pulls Clinton even.
Then CA takes her over the top.
So, if America wants to be ruled by CA and NY, then get rid of the electoral college.
If we ever lose the electoral college, candidates would only need to campaign in the big cities. Yet, the federal government makes policy—sadly way too much policy—for all Americans, not just LA, Chicago, and NYC. People in flyover country would be completely ruled by the cities on the coasts. Your ability to control your own property in states like Oklahoma would be seized from you and governed by people in LA. It might be different with a constitutionally restrained federal government, but as we’ve seen, the cities are rife with leftists who want to control everything and everyone.
(Clinton only won 4 of those counties as Trump won Richmond)...
THAT’S ME!!!! Italians for Trump!!!! :)
We have had an Italian Americans for Trump website :)
But we are ferociously outnumbered :(
I didn’t think the five boroughs were 319 square miles.
Manhattan is only about 10 miles away from Richmond County.
But as far as the culture goes, it might as well be 8000.
In other words, without the Electoral College, the US would be run by the Northeast urban corridor (running down I-95 from Boston, through NYC, Philadelphia and Baltimore, to DC), Chicago, and LA.
Which is why we love the Electoral College.
I am torn.
This makes sense, but it is a poll and thus meaningless..
The left hates a College that does not have safe zones or snowflakes, that does not have marxist overpaid professors, and that would be perfectly fine to have Ann Coulter speak to it.
Fraud would have a much greater impact without the electoral college. Fraud in a couple large cities could disenfranchise the entire country. With the electoral college, it doesn’t matter if millions upon millions of illegal aliens in LA and San Francisco vote for Hillary. The most they can fraudulently win is California’s electoral votes.
This kind of explains why Democrats are so dead set against voter ID and the electoral college, doesn’t it?
If you want to define it further, the Urban areas that vote Democrat are largely Non-Homeowners (i.e. Renters) and a large proportion of them receive some sort of Government Assistance. The Democrat party has endeavored for many decades to maintain Government dependency on Urban populations to get their votes. Without it, they would be reduced to third party status.
Democrats are the Urban Party; those areas I listed are the largest, powerful urban areas and would pick the bones of the rest of the country without the Electoral College.
But don’t forget government workers.
DC went 94% for Hillary!.
Government is government’s own biggest special interest. With just the support of the government workers, the Democrats would remain a major party.
Of course, most government workers are urban, too.
“Electoral College system is stronger today than it has been in many years.”
There is a general realization that it defeated Hillary Clinton.
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.