Democrat Proposes Amendment to Eliminate Electoral College
Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat, Tennessee. AP Photo by Cliff Owen.
It seems that those on the left don’t understand what’s really going on during the Presidential Election. Many people assume that this is a single contest, within a single voting area (US), by voters, to determine who wins the White House.
But, voting for the President isn’t one of these “single contests.” It’s actually 51 different contests, 50 States plus District of Columbia.
Each State, as a sovereign, votes for the President via their electors.
The popular vote, within a State as related to that state’s Electors, matter. The national popular vote, for President, is meaningless, and rightfully so.
From Fox News:
Cohen, in particular, called the Electoral College “distorting” and “outdated” in a statement regarding his proposals.
“Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office,” he said. “More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators. It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President.”
Thanks to AnotherPat for the link. You can read more on Fox News as well as on the Washington Times.
Category: Politics
Don’t like the rulers? Change the rules to your liking. Problem with that, though. Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the US Constitution would have to be amended.
Good luck with that.
Yes, but that’s a more general rule than the headline – I seem to recall Nixon supported getting rid of the electoral college as well when the Bayh-Celler amendment was proposed (1969). That obviously failed, but did have bipartisan support – the people opposed were primarily from smaller states, go figure.
I also remember that the Democrats were recently trying to get Texas to split its electoral votes based on percentage, and Republicans fought that. Yet in California, the reverse was true. Take a wild guess why in each case. The funny thing about it is that if Texas flips, I’m guessing both sides will immediately reverse course there, too.
The moral here is that people who lose because of election rules that are more complex than straight up vote counts tend to be a bit sour about that. Shocker. You could, in theory (but not in practice) have a national election that had 80% of people vote R, yet the Ds win because of the EC. If someone here doesn’t think the Rs would be complaining in that scenario, I have a bridge I’m selling, too.
Nixon and the Bayh-Celler amendment, really? If Texas “flips” I fully expect it to to declare itself a sovereign nation again, and take care of business. I may even move there. Just not to Austin.
I like you, LC, and admire your courage in coming into the belly of the beast to express your opinions. The fact they’re wrong does not diminish my admiration for you.
The Founders made the rules “complex” your words, to ensure large population centers could not overpower more sparsely populated rural areas, and it’s needed even more today. Look at the 2016 electoral map- major population centers on the coasts were deep blue, the fly-over states, red.
Cohen is the classic “two wolves and a sheep” voting on what’s for dinner, politician. As it stands now the sheep gets an electoral vote, same as the two wolves together. So they get take-out, and hold the mint jelly.
All Cohen needs to do is to amend the Constitution, which has been successfully done, what, some 27 times in over 200 years?
An aside, a theory can be defined as an an unproven assumption, or conjecture. Like your 80% solution. So I’m not buying into your bridge, but I’ll go halves on a fishing pier.
Now fish or cut bait.
*grin*
Those smaller states (go figure) are never going to ratify such an amendment. There’s nothing in it for New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana the Dakotas…etc…to ever concede to the whims of New York, Florida, California or Texas…
Just look at the PRoM here where I live to see what happens when the majority (mob) rules are in effect.
That mob can vote to flood four towns in the less populated part of the state to create a reservoir and then steal the water for themselves all the while taxing those poor bastards in the Western part to help pay for the theft of their own water.
So fuck those idiots proposing to end the EC, never happen unless the small states go full potato.
Let me be clear, I’m not defending Cohen’s amendment. I’m just saying that your initial statement applies equally, and consternation over the EC isn’t limited to one party.
There’s an ebb and flow to ‘solid’ blue/red states in the EC, and if you honestly think that, in a hypothetical situation where the big cities in Texas, Florida and a few other states have their population growth result in them becoming solidly blue, to the point where Democrats already have 270 solidly blue EC votes, that Republicans would just accept that and not argue about the EC, then let’s get back to talking about that bridge I’m selling.
And frankly, I think there’s some merit to grumbling about the EC. Sure, maybe my example was extreme, but when is the EC not representative of the poorly-defined ‘will of the people’? If Chelsea Clinton wins (ha!) an election where she has only 48% of the vote, is that acceptable? What about 45%? What about 40%? Again, if that happened, do you think Republicans would be like, “Aww, shucks! That’s just how the EC works. Good for Chelsea!”?
Again, I’m not saying the EC should be abolished, I’m just saying sour grapes from people on the wrong end of some of its ‘complexity’ isn’t exactly unexpected. To paraphrase Churchill, “The Electoral College is the worst way to select a President. Except for all the others.”
As an aside, a recent example of Republican frustration with electoral processes comes from Maine. Outgoing governor Paul LePage literally wrote ‘stolen election’ on the very paper certifying the results. Why? Because the people of Maine opted for Ranked-Choice Voting, and the election resulted in the Democratic winning.
Ranked Choice (or Instant-runoff) doesn’t give any one individual more power than another, and it was chosen by the people of the state, and yet you have plenty of sour people – including here at TAH. Which was my point – people who lose elections are going to be upset when anything more complex (not complex, just more complex) than straight-up direct-vote vote counting costs them a win.
“You could, in theory (but not in practice) have a national election that had 80% of people vote R, yet the Ds win because of the EC.” In theory, the same sports team (pick it) could win a championship every year. Ain’t theories fun?
I have absolutely no sympathy for people of either party that complain about losing in a system that has been in place for over 200 years. I’m assuming that there are courses they took when they got their degrees in Political Science that explained how things work? The fact that they were too lazy and indifferent to pay attention to certain states in 2016 does not mean that the system is broken, it means that one side did their homework and put in the work to win and the other didn’t. Sour grapes.
LC: Yes, but that’s a more general rule than the headline No, not a general rule but a clear cut one. The Constitution makes it explicitly clear that the States vote for the President, and they prescribe how it’s to be done. LC: — I seem to recall Nixon supported getting rid of the electoral college as well when the Bayh-Celler amendment was proposed (1969). It wouldn’t matter if a Republican or a Democrat supported it, or if the efforts were bipartisan. The States, and not the people, should be voting for President. I’d oppose an effort to do away with the Electoral Collage regardless of which party tries to get rid of it. LC: That obviously failed, but did have bipartisan support — the people opposed were primarily from smaller states, go figure. The smaller states aren’t going to give up the protections afforced to them by the way the Constitution set things up. They stand to lose without the Electoral College. LC: I also remember that the Democrats were recently trying to get Texas to split its electoral votes based on percentage, and Republicans fought that. Yet in California, the reverse was true. Take a wild guess why in each case. That’s a decision being made, within each of those states, on how those States would cast their votes for president. This is irrelevant to deciding the vote on a national scale, where you have 51 different contests for President, not one, and where the states and not the people chose the next president. LC: The moral here is that people who lose because of election rules that are more complex than straight up vote counts tend to be a bit sour about that. Shocker. You could, in theory (but not in practice) have a national election that had 80% of people vote R, yet the Ds win because of the EC. If someone here doesn’t think the Rs would be complaining in that scenario, I have a bridge I’m selling, too. False, this shows that you don’t understand the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. You… Read more »
No, not a general rule but a clear cut one. The Constitution makes it explicitly clear that the States vote for the President, and they prescribe how it’s to be done. My comment was in response to AW1Ed’s statement that if you don’t like the rulers, change the rules to your liking. This is a general theme that doesn’t just apply to Rep. Cohen. It wouldn’t matter if a Republican or a Democrat supported it, or if the efforts were bipartisan. The States, and not the people, should be voting for President. I’d oppose an effort to do away with the Electoral Collage regardless of which party tries to get rid of it. Of course not, but it shows, per my earlier point, the rule AW1Ed mentioned is broad and not just a Democrat thing. The smaller states aren’t going to give up the protections afforced to them by the way the Constitution set things up. They stand to lose without the Electoral College. Of course, that was my point too. That’s a decision being made, within each of those states, on how those States would cast their votes for president. This is irrelevant to deciding the vote on a national scale, where you have 51 different contests for President, not one, and where the states and not the people chose the next president. I didn’t claim it was relevant to Presidential elections, only that it’s evidence that ‘principles’ give way to practicality and winning, and that happens across the aisle. Each side is arguing to split votes in states where it helps them, and will fight it in states where it hurts them. False, this shows that you don’t understand the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. You assume that we conservatives base our arguments on emotions and whim like what liberals do, rather than on fact, reason, and logic. Ah, right. Conservatives championed fact, reason and logic with things like President Obama’s birth certificate, or death panels, or when he wore a tan suit (scandalous!), or the pizza-gate thing with Clinton, or ..well, I could keep going.… Read more »
LC: My comment was in response to AW1Ed’s statement that if you don’t like the rulers, change the rules to your liking. This is a general theme that doesn’t just apply to Rep. Cohen. The crux of AW1Ed’s argument centered on the section of the Constitution that spelled out how the president was going to be chosen/elected. That was his main argument as well, with the rest of the statement consisting of sentences supporting that argument. The disagreement is on whether it is “general and subject to change” or if it is “clear cut”. No, the argument is not and whether we can change the rules to our liking, although that was factored into other posts that mention the requirements for that change to occur. It remains center to the title of this thread, and to AW1Ed’s post centering on the same theme. LC: Of course not, but it shows, per my earlier point, the rule AW1Ed mentioned is broad and not just a Democrat thing. Wrong. My statement supported AW1Ed’s actual argument, regarding the wording of the Constitution that spells out how the president would be chosen, by the states and not by the people. That is not a general statement and it’s not broad. It’s clear cut. It becomes even more clear cut when you understand the history behind that concept. You are not advancing the idea that “rules are broad”. You are attempting to argue that a clear cut concept was “broad”. It wasn’t. The Democrats want to change something that is designed to protect from the potential evils of human nature. The Democrats are demanding something closer to a “true democracy”, something that our founding fathers were adamantly opposed to. LC: Of course, that was my point too. Redundant statement, you should’ve been able to understand, based on reading my reply, that I was not disagreeing with you when I said that the smaller states would not give that up. No need to jump in and point out what’s obvious. LC: I didn’t claim it was relevant to Presidential elections, only that it’s evidence that ‘principles’… Read more »
LC: or death panels, If you’re talking about what would ultimately result in a one payer government ran healthcare system, that’s a valid point. “Death panels” is a metaphor term to describe bureaucrats, or even medical staff, who’d decide whether someone continues to receive treatment, or whether there are limited resources which should be applied elsewhere for a better overall outcome. Again, the history related to such healthcare systems point to decisions like that being made. If you have limited resources, and limited funding, to deal with an oversized demand, a decision has to be made to allocate medical resources. A free market-based insurance and medical system, within a free market economy, does a better job at minimizing/mitigating deaths that indirectly result from the need to allocate “limited” resources. LC: or when he wore a tan suit (scandalous!), If you’re talking about him smoking, or about him with a turban, and put that together with the rest of his history, as well as with the statements in his books and elsewhere, that is relevant with regards to the “whole person” concept of who he is and where his loyalties would be at. The bit about his smoking is a nonissue, it wouldn’t matter if it was photoshopped, or if it was the real deal. Whether he was a Muslim, or he wasn’t, by itself would not be an issue either. However, when past actions, and actual actions, indicate lack of loyalty to the interests of the US, that topic becomes relevant. Something that seems to escape today’s liberals. LC: or the pizza-gate thing with Clinton, The majority of conservatives rejected that argument. Assuming that the rest of us agreed with that argument, or even applying that was something that conservatives would pursue, would be like assuming that all Christians want to harass veteran funerals while condemning the government’s supporting gay rights. Using the specific example, like the others, is nothing but a strawman. LC: or ..well, I could keep going. You, along with the other liberals that I debated with over the past 15 years, are excellent at continuing to… Read more »
Yep, I bet this simple minded prick does want to get rid of the electoral college, then the evil bitch from the east would have been pres instead of a REAL PRESIDENT in Trump! Screw this lying, communist new world order freaking puppets! imho
The Democrats just seem to be trying to out-stupid each other.
There is some serious competition for that one this session…
this occasional kotex thingy is in the lead right now, and over the top of chuckyschmucky, nanfromfran, schitt and so many more the list is just endless !!!
Hell, we even have a few contenders here, LC, Yeff, go get buffing Yef and a few more lurking in the shadows…
Holy cow, some of them are calling for nuclear warfare to rid the country of President Trump.
I have an idea, why don’t all of those clowns prove they are down with the struggle and kill themselves so we know how serious they are !!!
“Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office.” This American has no such expectation. But for the Electoral College, presidential candidates would be elected by a few states. As of 2016, California had more REGISTERED VOTERS than the entire postulations of 46 states! No thank you very much.
Maybe those Californians should move to other states so their vote really matters! That would be a real conspiracy. They could all move to other states and work from home via the internet…oh wait internet is only fast in big cities and where they would need to move they would probably have to rely on HughesNet or something like that for “fast internet”….
Bad pic, T. Just no. As for the rest he’s with the old “Two wolves and a sheep” dinner vote.
It depends. If you’re gay, it’s suggestive and inviting. If you’re not, it’s repulsive.
Caught me in mid-edit. For the record, I find him and his ideas repulsive, pic is what it is.
Which is repulsive as well.
He certainly knows how to hold his cock-holster in the receiving position.
Of course, this is the same fuckstick that wanted to give Strozk a Purple Heart.
That moron Steve Cohen has a pie hole that looks perfect for continuous cock-holstering…
I see I’m not the only one to notice the shape of his mouth. A horse could find it useful, I suppose. And perhaps some stallions have.
Hey Cohen! Smile like a donut!
And when a Republican wins the popular vote and the Presidency, we need to bring back the Electoral College now in order to restore our nation.
Those who want to get rid of the Electoral Collage don’t understand the important concepts behind it, and why we have it rather than just having a popular vote. We’re a republic, not a democracy. As a history aficionado, and understanding human nature, I don’t see how any freedom loving American would embrace a national popular vote for President.
I’d be far more open to rescinding the 17th Amendment than I would be getting rid of the electoral college.
I second that motion.
Second that whole heartedly Mason1
Mason, TopGoz, Fyrfighter: I’d be interested in hearing your arguments for repeal of the 17th Amendment. Not sandbagging here, I would genuinely like to know. Any others with an opinion, either way, feel free to chime in here with your opinions.
Exactly so! Direct election of Senators was an -epic- mistake. They are supposed to represent the -State-, not the folks -of- a State, thus -not- merely another set of Representatives.
That was in addition to the value of ensuring small States had at least some voice in decisions.
Imposing an Electoral College, by county as by states, on governor elections would go a long way to un-farkking the rule-by-city-or-two currently screwing up many states.
Not a chance, but sorely needed.
Damn straight! No way Colorado would be stuck with this side-saddle governor if we had that.
“Direct election of Senators was an -epic- mistake.“
You can’t be serious! What about all the GREAT Senators-for-life and the massive bank accounts of our BRAVE representatives in the upper house.
I’d like the pendulum to swing all the way, national referendum on party, we can call it something cool, like ‘Duma’, they can come up with 5 or 10 year plans!
Make America GREEN again!
The 17th is a great selling point for why the EC should remain in place. And agree that it should be rescinded.
No, you do NOT want the 17th Amendment repealed!!! NEVER!!!
Do you REALLY want the state legislatures to elect senators, instead of the people who live in those states? The process is corrupt enough, isn’t it? And you want to make it MORE corrupt than it already is?
Well, I do NOT want that.
Sorry Ex, much as I respect you, this is one place I’ll disagree. The Founders put in the method of choosing Senators for a reason, and IMO, it’s something we should have stuck with. Just like the electoral college, it’s one more way of ensuring checks and balances. Kinda like diversity in a stock portfolio, having different methods ensures that a take over of any one will not doom the republic.
Senators represent the -State-, not its People.
Feature, not bug.
So who is currently representing the interests of the various state? No one, because the 17th removed those who were supposed to do that.
Why do we need two houses representing the people directly? We don’t. What we do need is some body representing the interests of the state. With that, perhaps we would have had a chance, albeit small, of avoiding the subjugation of states to the feds that is killing us now.
Again, the demoncats will do anything they can to continue to push this country into a “socialist utopia.” What votes they haven’t bought with their “free stuff army”, they will attempt to steal thru legislation, ballot mining, or sleight of hand.
We must emphasize Eternal Vigilance. Entire areas of the country are being infiltrated by these parasites, the professional socialistic politician. They started off taking over enclaves in cities, moving up into state governments, and now barreling into federal level. It’s almost as if someone is running the numbers to see just how many votes are needed, or how much the population needs to change to swing the vote from a middle right, to a hard left. Who thought that bastions of conservative, freedom loving, limited government states would become the cesspools that they are now. I would doubt very seriously if the majority of Tenn residents think like this fool, but he is now the “mouth piece” of the state. Oh and BTW, no way my cock would go into that holster, the outie would become an innie and no amount of blue pills could change that.
The latest target has been “old white men”. Well those “old white men” (and many of them weren’t old) that framed our Constitution back then in the 1780s had their defecation in sequence. In order to form that more perfect union of states into a country, they knew that the less populated states would need the same amount of representation as the more populated ones. Our system has worked well and held up for these 230 some odd years. Leave it the f alone. I really don’t want the people of New York & Commifornia electing my president.
The betos, AlexOlusedCotexs are coming for your city, district, state & country. Remember the other “community organizer”? That’s her background, and now she is comparing herself as a radicalized Abe Lincoln and FDR. Be Aware…Be very Aware.
I wonder if the Google HQ decision has anything to do with this? They chose several locations instead of just one, to help spread their Northern California ideas into some of those swing states, ensure they stay “blue”
“Cohen, in particular, called the Electoral College “distorting” and “outdated” in a statement regarding his proposals.”
What I find distorting and outdated are the lamestream media and Drat party. They don’t have a chance in hell of eliminating the Electoral College; this is simply singing to the choir. And I don’t think they want to eliminate the EC. This is simply an attempt on the part of the Drat party to stay relevant.
I am really getting tired of poor sports and spoiled brats. These are the rules.
They are fair to everyone.
If you don’t like the rules, tough bananas.
Some of these people would complain if you hung them with a brand new rope. (Oh, that is so hostile of me…!)
If these idiots think that our Constitution and our laws, including the electoral college are outdated, then they do not understand that OUR laws follow the same laws regarding the rights of citizens as the Magna Carta, signed into law by King John at Runnymede.
Magna Carta, which means ‘The Great Charter’, is one of the most important documents in history as it established the principle that everyone is subject to the law, even the king, and guarantees the rights of individuals, the right to justice and the right to a fair trial.
William Penn, when drawing up the charter for his colony, made it clear that colonists in his chartered colony would have the rights that were guaranteed to them by the Magna Carta (despite the Pope’s annulment of it, but he was unwilling to accept sovereign law that overrode Church law.)
Most of them don’t know or understand our history. Those that do know don’t care. That’s just stuff written by dead old white men to subjugate and enslave the poor and oppressed minorities. It isn’t ‘progressive,’ meaning it doesn’t give them the unlimited power to push their agenda of subjugation and enslavement of the masses who need their ‘guidance’ on how to live and what to think. How dare you think you have the right to live your life as you wish without their input and control! You have to be told what to do for your own good! What are you, a Republican?
“3 strikes and you’re out!!”
But wait, not for me!
I was always told how special I was. This must always be true!
The reason for the change is to prevent people like Pres. trump from getting into office.
Was that faggot looking son-of-a-bitch ever a roommate to Bonny Fwank?
That sense we know of as gut-instinct is fully validated in Cohen’s countenance. I wouldn’t let my dog piss on his shoes.
The thing that irritates me the most about The Electoral College, is that people call it the “ElectorIal” College…ay dios mio!!! There is no “I” in Electoral College!
Not only that, but 40 states aren’t going to vote for an amendment to make themselves irrelevant in Presidential elections. Just more whining & crying from Jackass Party.
Their insanity is real, they are ready to throw out everything including the bathwater, the baby, and the mile of sewer pipe it’s hooked onto.
There is a level of insanity not seen in my lifetime. The last time we had something like this, it ended up in WWII.
God forbid we should go on that journey again…
I just watched “Darkest Hour” once again, Chamberlain and Viscount Halifax were ready to bargain with Hitler and almost got their way.
To me, Trump is a lot like Winston the Lion Churchill…
The odds are huge against him, but he refused to surrender.
Take heart my friends, we’ve been here before…
Yes, but look at the cost. Unfortunately, far too many are unwilling to pay any price to maintain our Republic. Or they aren’t educated properly to know how our government and country is supposed to run.
Like this…
The exact reason we hired him !!!
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/06/donald-trump-vows-not-bend-shutdown-fight-dont-like-doing-we-have-no-choice/
Do we have a House of Representatives or is it a big area for adult daycare of the mental disorder kind? I really wish the media wouldn’t give so much attention to them.
That was a rhetorical question right?
Removal of the electoral college would mean that for the next 100 years (At least), the Kardashians would be taking turns as President.
I can see the bumper stickers now: “DON’T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR KOURTNEY”
This is the representative government we’re left with after we raised several generations of kids that always got participation trophies and were never told “NO”.
Where is our mindless mollusk, the commie cuttlefish? I would think he would be all over this issue, just like the above lefty blatherskite.
“Where is our mindless mollusk, the commie cuttlefish?” Good question; I haven’t read him in several days.
In his diatribe, Representative Stupid McMoron up there leaves out one very important fact, one which I learned in 9th grade Civics (and which I taught when I had to teach 9th grade Civics):
**Nowhere** in Article II of the Constitution does it say we get to vote for president. In fact, the original plan was to have state legislatures choose the electors.
Granted, the states hold a popular vote to do this – but they don’t have to. I’ve said here before that if, in 2020, the states told the voters to stay at home, the legislatures would take care of choosing the president – the way the Founders originally intended – it would be 100% legal and constitutional. They use a popular vote in each state to choose electors so there is no political damage to the legislators.
“Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office.” There’s not supposed to BE a popular vote for president – never has been, never will be.
Who elects these idiots, anyway?
Correctamundo, CW, but progs/libtards don’t want you embarrassing them with facts and black letter constitutional law that refute their BS.
There is sometimes, I believe, a sense that human nature was somehow different in the 18th century than it is today, that politicians weren’t interested in amassing and consolidating power. There were scoundrels in the 18th century just as there are today. The genius of the Constitution, in part, was to ensure as best as possible that the three branches of the Federal gov’t were interdependent yet independent and that states retained their sovereignty yet needed to be cooperative and reliant upon one another to check the recognized threat of a monolithic central gov’t. Where are we today with respect to that enlightened scheme?
Percentage wise there was probably as many scoundrels then as there are now, just harder to catch and harder to see through the veil of history. Local, State, and National. Down here in the Southland was the infamous Yazoo Land Fraud among others.
I think that in modern times the whole political thing has become interdependent on looking after the politicians; the people and the country be damned. This whole professional running for reelection at all levels of government has just gotten out of hand, with the average person throwing their hands up and saying f’it. We must change that way of thinking, again, at all levels and take our country back. We make a good start in ’16, lost some ground in ’18; Keep up the fight, never surrender, never retreat!
Eternal Vigilance.