Regarding the Electoral College
Back in 2016, when the election results were announced and the faces of many thousands of millennials crashed so heavily that the resulting thud registered on some seismic meters as small local quakes, there was an overheated argument going on in the media about why the electoral college should/should not be eliminated.
It has to do with representation.
James Madison, the primary architect of the Constitution, and the other representatives believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with an Electoral College, no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as a check on an electorate that might be duped.
Madison and the others did not trust the population to make the right choice. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others. In view of how things have gone in the past two years, these people – Madison, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, et al., had enormous foresight.
The electoral college is part of the compromises made at the Constitutional Convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College, each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have Representatives (not Senators) in Congress, therefore, no state could have less than 3. The result of this system is that in the 2016 election, the state of Wyoming casts about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, representing 179,000 votes per elector. Does this create an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more than those of people living in medium and large states? Yes, and they were very aware of it from the beginning.
The Founding Fathers, the creators of our Constitution, did not want direct election to the Presidency. They were deeply concerned that a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power through the popular vote. And how often have we seen that in the 19th and 20th centuries? Yes, and there’s a long list I could show you. They saw it happen in France in 1789. We saw it happen in Russia 100 years ago, and in Germany barely 87 years in the past. And we’ve come close, as well, a couple of times.
Since the electoral college votes are given in their entirety to the majority winner of the state ballot count in elections, the result is that one state with 10 electoral votes may tip the balance toward a specific candidate. We saw this in November 2016, in which the weeping and wailing in the outer darkness of losing a contest showed up on TV screens everywhere.
The electoral vote is always determined by a simple majority count of 2 votes. A candidate may win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, as happened more than once in presidential elections and happened again in our most recent presidential race. The winner-take-all method used in electoral voting was decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century as America grew in size, volume and frontiers. The total number of electoral votes is, in keeping with the growth of this country, 538, of which 270 form the 2-vote simple majority that determines who is elected President of these United States.
Now the Democrats are casting their eyes on changing our equal representation in the Senate because – well, it cuts into their power structure. https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-we-should-elimi
That attention-grabbing person from NYC, Ocasio-Cortez, says the electoral college is ‘a shadow of slavery’s power’, and should be eliminated. Well, no, it is not. That statement very clearly shows her ignorance and her complete lack of understanding of the history of our Constitution and our government, never mind our country.
Her companions on this journey of destruction say the same thing about the Senate – equal representation in one House of Congress is somehow undemocratic. Well, you bet your bippy it is. The framers of the Constitution knew that all along. They were forced into that corner 1787 for a good reason.
We have two (2) Senators from each state, period. This has to do with the original design of the US Constitution. From the beginning, small states said that they would not accept proportional representation in the Senate, the way it is structured in the House of Representatives. James Madison and the other large-state delegates didn’t take the objections of the small-state delegates seriously. They refused the ‘equal or nothing’ terms.
So what happened? The small states got up and walked out. They went on strike. Unless they got equal representation in the Senate, they would in fact assure the failure of the Constitutional Convention and damn the consequences. Compromise, or there will be no Constitution.
The Articles of Confederation gave states equal sovereignty, regardless of their size. The small states would not accept being viewed as lesser entities. Thus, the U.S. Constitution was written as it stands today, because the Small States stood up to the Big Guys and said “Not just no, but hell, no.”
The House of Representatives gives us proportional representation, and determines how many electoral votes each state has: XXX for Representatives.
The Senate allows equal representation with 2 Senators in the US Senate for all states, regardless of size.
The only way to change any of this is to trash the US Constitution and start over. Popular voting through proportional representation is what gave us the electoral college in the first place, in which the majority winner in each state takes all the votes. The foresight of the framers of the Constitution was not just sharply focused, but also accurate and has certainly withstood the test of time.
The problem is that the Lefterds seem to be demonstrating their complete ignorance of the Law of the Land, in addition to an utter lack of class and respect for others, which are the rule now with them instead of the exception. They are, in fact, annoying so many people who might vote Democrat that these other people are considering their other options.
It’s that old Newtonian rule again: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Most of us learned to lose at home, in grade school and on the playing fields of school sports.
These bad mannered, obnoxious, disrespectful spoiled brats and sore losers want to throw our Constitution out the window, not just change it, so that they can have their way.
Tough bananas. They will just have to learn to lose gracefully.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit, Politics
This shit never gets old….
How come these peeps telling us that they will commit suicide but are still around crying as well as the hollyweird left saying that they will move to Canada but are still around. They must have a problem getting a moving company or they don’t like the moving rates, because all these shit birds are still here crying.
Well, they qualify it by having homes in Canada, Europe, maybe even Fiji. That way they can say they’re moving there, when they aren’t talking about how evil and terrible “rich people” are because of how greedy they are for keeping so much money for themselves.
Barbara Streisand (and others) are false promising to move to Canada again if they (Dems) fail to win the HoR. I had high hopes they would all leave after 2016 but of course they were all lies.
Hillary still wants to be president. After the coup, she is going to be coranated or something. She has given up on the electoral college; doesn’t need it once Trump and Pence are hanged as traitors. Anyway, that is how the progs see our future.
exactly, sir.
Excellent post Mi’ Lady; bears to be required reading/study of every snowflake out there. With a quiz afterward. It all goes back to proper home training.
Thank you. That’s an entire generation of children in adult bodies who will hit their 40s before long, and wonder
‘whaa- happen’.
I believe that they are in the minority, despite the level of attention they receive.
The Democrats want to abolish the electoral college so that “flyover country” has no voice in the election of the president.
Only the biggest states of California, New York, Texas and Florida would matter.
Is everyone aware the California has instituted a system called jungle primaries, where Republicans don’t appear on the ballot in state and local elections?
Only the top 2 vote getting candidates in the primaries appear on the ballot. That means two Democrats and no Republican in most elections.
Is that legal?
It looks like Chicago-style vote fraud, just done in a slightly different way.
Go back and look at the 1860 election. “Chicago-Style” politics coming on in a grand scale, possibly the real start of it all. Division between the Douglas Dems and the upstart Lincoln Repubs, going tooth and nail against the New York Tammanary(sp?) Hall (Gov Seymore) (sp?) Stanton and Seward (both on Lincoln’s Cabinet, hating him; Stanton thinking he should of had the nomination) Dan Sickles (NY) getting himself appointed to Command as Brigadier General, moving up to Major Gen @ Corps Command. Not to throw rocks at the good folks of Illinois, but their politicians have sucked and screwed them over for decades. Disclaimer. Have some good friends between Alton and Cahokia. Served with several from Chicago, and the hinterlands.
Every state in the country better watch their polling places, their voting machines, the registrations…all of it, the dumocraps are not above the worst kind of corruption and election fixing! imho
It’s not just that Democrats control the candidates in California, it’s also that Democrats in the Bay Area have a disproportionate influence. Both senators are from San Francisco, as is Nancy Pelosi, and the next governor is likely to be Gavin Newsom who is another former mayor of SF. His soon-to-be predecessor, Jerry “Choo-Choo” Brown is the former mayor of Oakland which can be considered Baja Berkeley.
Meaning that even if you’re a moderate Democrat from, let’s say, Modesto, your chances of gaining political stature are slim unless you can appease the Bay Area progressives and eco-radicals. And if you’re a Republican in Orange County, you might as well quit politics and go to work selling used cars.
Anyway you slice it, its pretty much a late-stage political machine.
Such influence also extends to the court system where a majority of California voters can, for example, support the death penalty or a ban on same-sex marriage, but the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, will almost always overturn those ballot measures which don’t fit a progressive eco-rad agenda.
Keep in mind, California is also the same state where if you’re infected by HIV and KNOWINGLY pass it on to someone else, that’s perfectly fine now.
The more looney they get, the more downhill the spiral goes. I can’t believe so many companies still have HQs there, except for those that get tax exemptions because they bought the right elected officials a long time ago and keep riding those ponies.
It’s still illegal, it’s just no longer a felony. Because apparently the incurable HIV and AIDS, though still terminal, are now “treatable”, or some such BS.
They also claimed it was a law disproportionately affecting or discriminatory to gays. Says more to be about your group that you’re crying “victim” for those INTENTIONALLY spreading a horrible disease.
Just read Moonbeam signed into law a bill that says 14 to 18 year olds can’t be prosecuted as adults. So, I guess MS-13 murderers only have to spend time in Juvie until they are 25. Too bad we can’t send him to Venezuela where he belongs.
Eliminate the Electoral Collge and anyone other than the coastal elites become meaningless. The country becomes Chicago to the rest of Illinois. https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-ferguson/illinois-is-a-mess-heres-why
Popular democracy is mob rule.
I’ve said this to my friends more than once. If the President were selected by Popular vote, the Kardashians would end up taking turns being president for about the next 50 years.
Think about that the next time you want to abolish the electoral college.
The more you read about the founding of this country the more absolutely brilliant the founders become. The electoral college is just one of the many innovations they created that have allowed this country to endure and become the shining beacon of freedom the world over.
Good luck getting rid of it, too. We can’t get 2/3rd of congress to agree on anything, even stuff they support. Two-thirds of the states greatly benefit from it, it’s really just California and New York City that think it’s unfair.
Minor quibble: while it requires 2/3 of Congress to propose a Constitutional Amendment (or 2/3 of the state’s legislatures to request a Constitutional Convention), it takes an affirmative vote by 3/4 of the states (either by the state legislature or a state convention) to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. (Article V, US Constitution)
That’s the real “high hurdle” for a proposed Constitutional Amendment. Quite a number have cleared Congress with a 2/3 vote only to fail ratification by the states.
I stand corrected.
How about the next day after the 2016 election, there was a video of the victory cake that Sir Edmond Hillary. Belay that last, I mean hillary clinton was supposed to eat was splattered all over the large hall they were in. I guess the cake was a demorat and just exploded.
I believe that was one of the results of H. Wideload Clintoon going apeshit crazy the previous night. Word is the damage was in the high thousands of $$$. I’m sure the cake was just another casualty of her rage.
Mention the Electoral College in a group and eyes glaze over or quizzical looks appear on faces. One or two may suddenly remember that they left the stove on at home and have to leave. The Electoral College is covered in grade schools and high schools (or used to be, anyway) and it was, on the whole, forgettable stuff. The election of 2016 changed that. Here’s a terrific 10 minute video (no lecture!) on how it works. Watch it and be an instant genius and, if not a genius, a rare American who knows how it works.
It wasn’t just 2016. There was the same complaining (from mostly the same group) after the 2000 election too. People’s memories are short.
Doesn’t help that only half the country bothers to vote, and of that half most only pay attention during the last two weeks of an election.
“Doesn’t help that only half the country bothers to vote…” I like it that way. If people are too damn lazy or uncaring to vote, then I prefer that they stay away from the polls. I am a vote snob and would very much like a civics-test qualifier to vote but that isn’t going to happen, thanks to the Constitution.
I’m wid you AC, civics qualifier and a vote snob. I’m glad a lot of them don’t vote, but the flip side of that is a lot of folks that think like us won’t bother, cause (a)”my vote don’t count”(b) not gonna register, don’t won’t jury duty (heads up, a lot of jury rosters are now being taken from vehicle registration lists) (c) don’t want to take off from work (most companies now are required to give you time off to go vote) and yeah the list of lame duck excuses go on and on. On the other side, especially down here and in certain neighborhoods, the voter registration form is filled out for you, you sign it & you’re slipped a little bonus. Election day or earlier the bus/van comes around, loads you up, takes you to the polls. You vote the “party line” get back on the bus/van and are slipped another little “bonus.” Happens all the time, but to see the news media, their voting rights are being suppressed. You may remember a national story 20 plus years ago about an infamous “trench coat” Senator who kept his “walking around money” in the inside pocket. He kept them on “the plantation for decades, him and his daddy, from a state and national level. I brow beat a buncha folks every election year to do their duty. Some I’ve busted when they get to bitching about politics, I’ll ask “Did you vote?” “no man I didn’t”; My reply, “Then shut the f up and quit your bitching”. This upcoming mid term is probably the most important midterm we have ever seen. Tell your friends.
More important than 1858? 1918? 1994? Doubtful.
Why, were you in grade school or high school in 1858 or 1918? I never made any statement that yours makes sense in response to.
Think he is citing mid-term years which he considers as historically meaningful as the present.
Federalist No. 10
Long and short, if you could promise enough free crap to population centers, you’d have a faction that could directly elect a President.
Madison: “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.”
So, yeah, you commie sh*tstains can pry the Electoral College out of my cold, dead hands.
ExPH2, the electoral college does include votes for the senators.
As per your example, Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes because of the 1 single district, Wyoming-at-large, and the two senators representing Wyoming.
I know, Joe, it’s a brain cramp. That’s all.
The reason no state can have less than 3 electoral votes is because every state has a minimum of 2 senators and one representative in the House.
There are 7 states with only one seat in the house.
Of those Montana is expected to move up in the next national census to have 2 representatives because its population is over a million now.
Average district is 750,000 peeps. They are supposed to be somewhere between 500k and 1mill.
So electoral college is the same number of votes of the 435 dudes in da house and the 100 senators.
Basically the Democrats were lazy and took their voters in the old industrial states for granted. I find the fact that people possessing advanced degrees of every stripe – including political science – are shocked and indignant about the “unfair” system. It has existed for centuries, losses due to the college vote have happened in the past, and none of these enlightened spirits have taken the time and effort to study that history and get out and do the real work of visiting the people they are asking to vote. Trump did exactly that and reaped the rewards, and the fact that his hard work payed off is driving the DNC nuts. The fact of the non-partisan matter is Trump did the hard work needed to win, Hillary didn’t.
Good article.