Posted on 03/23/2019 11:29:57 PM PDT by Kaslin
Recently, Elizabeth Warren and a number of other Democratic candidates for president have suggested that the Electoral College be abolished. Right now, a candidate for president must win a majority of Electoral College votes regardless of the outcome of the national popular vote.
President Donald Trump in 2016 and President George W. Bush in 2000, did not win the popular vote, but they did win a majority in the Electoral College. The Dems claim that this is not fair and that the president should be elected by popular vote. In fact, a number of states are trying to change their Electoral College votes based on the national popular vote rather than the vote within their state.
In theory, a democracy or a constitutional republic makes major decisions based on the desires of the majority of the people. Indeed, it was rule by a generally elite minority, rather than the majority, that was the basis for the founding of our country. However, our forefathers also recognized that the United States of America, while honoring rule by the majority, also realized that individual states must have basic rights and a should have a voice in presidential elections.
Why did our forefathers establish two chambers of Congress?
When Congress was formed there were two bodies created: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Realizing that it would be impossible to have a direct democracy where each citizen voted on each issue, a representative democracy was established. In theory, voters elect representatives who will vote in Congress on issues in a manner that reflects the views of their constituents.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
There is NO SUCH THING AS THE POPULAR VOTE!!
We’re a republic!!
I feel like Woody talking to Buzz lightyear in “A Toy Story”
“YOU....ARE....A TOY!!!!”
It has been wrong since Amendment 17.
Federalism has been half-deaf ever since.
The only places with power would be the mega population centers. Everyone elses voices would be ignored.
This is why the last 40 years libs have done such a sh1t job teaching US history.
They dont want people to understand what type of government we actually have and why it is a superior model to mob rule democracy or worse forms.
The Founders knew about the catastrophic serfdom of Russia piloted from Moscow.
It is not unconstitutional if they get a Constitutional Amendment to do it, but they need 3/4 of the states to disenfranchise themselves out of deference to NY and California. It will never happen.
It is not unconstitutional if they get a Constitutional Amendment to do itAll they have to do is get all the Convention Of States AKA Constitutional Convention anti-17th amendment pinheads convinced to blindly join them, they might get their wish.
But not before the 1st and 2nd amendments are bastardized to conform with their 21st century way of thinking.
It's been a 40-year indoctrination project by the New Left. I saw this day coming when the radicals took over the universities in the 60's. The unionization of public school teachers also led directly to ignoring U.S. history and civics, replacing them with Marxist "free stuff for everybody" BS.
They’re teaching US history? Wow you could have fooled me.
When you look over the methods of changing this...it’s just about impossible, but it does make good headlines, and giving the ‘talking-heads’ something to whine about an entire hour.
It would be interesting to untie the Electoral votes from each state, and assign them to just districts by themselves. So you could have eight electoral votes exist in California from GOP-leaning districts. Same would occur in NY state, with five or six of their votes going to the GOP.
But if you ever got around to changing the system, to dump the Electoral College, why stop there? Why not limit the states to just one Senator each, and eliminate most of the duties and responsibilities of the Senators? Why have an entire year set up for a national election? Why not run the whole primary season in 30 days, have a convention the week after that, and then have the national election 90 days after the convention week for both parties? I could see various improvements to the system that go beyond abolishing the Electoral College.
Districts use census population which includes illegals. So illegals would get more weight even if they don't vote. Second, California alllows political activists to harvest votes. We would lose some GOP-leavning districts from that tactic.
'nuff said.
of course it’s unconstitutional that’s why they want an amendment.
What you said.
California and New York would elect every President if we dumped the Electoral College.
...and stupid.
The Electoral College was created by the Constitution but I’m not sure if the states can award their votes to the winner of the popular vote.
I don’t see any Constitutional requirement as to HOW the States pick their Electors - should be ok to award them based on the national popular vote if they want to. Nobody in any of the states without one of the top 40 or so metropolitan areas should support such a state government.
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.