easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,071
- 2,645
It's law....at least in Colorado....
The Founding Fathers...and John F. Kennedy...are rolling their eyes at the triggered partisan Democrats who want to ignore the wisdom of our Founding fathers and abolish the reason Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016 - which would be HILLARY CLINTON but which THEY claim is an 'outdated' Electoral College system.
Before acting so rashly simply because the Electoral College system worked as it should and they did not get their way, they should really educate themselves on WHY the Founding Fathers created this system and WHY it has proven its wisdom since then:
- 'The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states. ... The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency.Jul 17, 2018'
- 'Our Founders weren't belabored with the belief that a president need have a true majority of the popular vote to serve legitimately ("Capital Journal: Electoral College Gets One 'No' Vote," Nov. 10). Far more important was the existence of a broad distribution of popular support across various states and voter groups, thereby preventing complete domination by populous areas, giant demographic voting blocks or the geographic region from which a candidate hailed.'
Perhaps the best explanation / justification is this:
Democrats are creatures of EMOTION and prone to immediate knee-jerk reactions to stimuli. especially in matters where they do not get their way. Rather than ADMIT that Hillary was a proven felon who compromised our national security, was protected from indictment / prison, was GIVEN a nomination she could not win, ran the worst campaign in US history, admit she just simply LOST, and admit that in this election the 'Lesser of 2 Evils' won, Democrats instead - like spoiled children who did not get their way - threw a tantrum...initiated a seditious conspiracy / coup d'état, and sought to / seek to UN-DO an election whose outcome they refuse to accept.
The pattern of demanding the Electoral College be abolished is actually cyclical and has also been called for by sore-loser Republicans in the past as well:
'An average of once every hundred years, the Electoral College count in a presidential election does not correspond to the so called “popular” vote. And after every such election, supporters of the popular vote winner often decry the federalist system enshrined in the Constitution and calls for abolition of it.
For the past two hundred years, the cyclical partisan demand for abolition of the Electoral College has been the same for the argument in favor of abolishing the U.S. Senate—namely that citizens of smaller states have greater representation in the Senate than those in large states. But as a young Senator John F. Kennedy stated in 1956 in opposing a knee-jerk Republican proposal to abolish the Electoral College, “(I) f it is proposed to change the balance of power of one of the elements (of the Grand Compromise), it is necessary to consider the others”. In other words, if were are to abolish one prong of the Grand Compromise (the Electoral College), then we must consider the other element as well—namely the existence of the U.S. Senate.
Thankfully for the Republic, John Kennedy was successful in defeating the Republican proposal to abolish the Electoral College, and by implication also preserving the existence of the U.S. Senate. The wisdom of defeating such a proposal was reflected in the election of 1960, in which the popular vote was so narrow (within seven tenths of one percent), that had the Electoral College been abolished and a so-called “poplar vote” system been in place, the narrow margin of popular votes would have triggered re-counts in almost every state. If one recalls the national trauma of recounts in but one state in the 2000 election—Florida—one can imagine the national nightmare of recounts and court challenges in all 50 states under a popular vote system. Indeed, it has been estimated that without the Electoral College, it would have taken at least 6-9 months before a popular vote winner could be declared, if then. Thankfully, the wisdom of the Electoral College was vindicated when John F. Kennedy was declared the winner by virtue of an overwhelming Electoral College victory. Nixon didn’t even bother to contest the election, despite substantial evidence of vote fraud in Chicago, and despite winning the popular vote, because he knew that even if he won Illinois, Kennedy’s margin of victory in the Electoral College would still have resulted in Kennedy’s election. Indeed, without the Electoral College, Trump would almost certainly have had a claim to countless recounts in every state because of the narrow margin of popular votes in favor of Clinton.
As the centuries pass, and Americans have become accustomed to almost instant winners in the Electoral College (except in the once in a century election in which the Electoral vote is close, as in 2000), the wisdom of the Founding Fathers has been vindicated again and again. One of the purposes of the Electoral College was to insure that support for a candidate be broad as well as deep. For example, if in the 1950’s an overwhelming popular vote support for segregationist candidate in the Deep South had resulted in a narrow popular vote margin in the country as a whole, that candidate could not have won in the Electoral College given the opposition to that candidate across the rest of the country.'
'History will not be on the side of those who seek to destroy the federalist system created by the founding Fathers. In the last 200 years, there have been more than 200 aborted attempts to undermine federalism by doing so, including 100 proposals for a so-called “popular vote”. All have failed once the catastrophic implications of such an undermining of our federal system have been understood.
Students of history may recall that Alexander Hamilton even proposed abolishing states entirely, to be replaced by arbitrary regional lines crisscrossing the new United States. Despite his great feat of stabilizing the national financial system, for which the country owes a great debt, we can be grateful that at least this proposal, along with his proposal that a president be appointed “for life” along the lines of royal succession, was wisely rejected by the Founding Fathers.'
Sour Losers? It’s Now Law. Colorado Will Allocate Their Electoral College Delegates Based On National Popular Vote Winner
How The Electoral College Saved The Day. Again. | HuffPost
The Ultimate Wisdom of the Electoral College
The Founding Fathers...and John F. Kennedy...are rolling their eyes at the triggered partisan Democrats who want to ignore the wisdom of our Founding fathers and abolish the reason Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016 - which would be HILLARY CLINTON but which THEY claim is an 'outdated' Electoral College system.
Before acting so rashly simply because the Electoral College system worked as it should and they did not get their way, they should really educate themselves on WHY the Founding Fathers created this system and WHY it has proven its wisdom since then:
- 'The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states. ... The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency.Jul 17, 2018'
- 'Our Founders weren't belabored with the belief that a president need have a true majority of the popular vote to serve legitimately ("Capital Journal: Electoral College Gets One 'No' Vote," Nov. 10). Far more important was the existence of a broad distribution of popular support across various states and voter groups, thereby preventing complete domination by populous areas, giant demographic voting blocks or the geographic region from which a candidate hailed.'
Perhaps the best explanation / justification is this:
Democrats are creatures of EMOTION and prone to immediate knee-jerk reactions to stimuli. especially in matters where they do not get their way. Rather than ADMIT that Hillary was a proven felon who compromised our national security, was protected from indictment / prison, was GIVEN a nomination she could not win, ran the worst campaign in US history, admit she just simply LOST, and admit that in this election the 'Lesser of 2 Evils' won, Democrats instead - like spoiled children who did not get their way - threw a tantrum...initiated a seditious conspiracy / coup d'état, and sought to / seek to UN-DO an election whose outcome they refuse to accept.
The pattern of demanding the Electoral College be abolished is actually cyclical and has also been called for by sore-loser Republicans in the past as well:
'An average of once every hundred years, the Electoral College count in a presidential election does not correspond to the so called “popular” vote. And after every such election, supporters of the popular vote winner often decry the federalist system enshrined in the Constitution and calls for abolition of it.
For the past two hundred years, the cyclical partisan demand for abolition of the Electoral College has been the same for the argument in favor of abolishing the U.S. Senate—namely that citizens of smaller states have greater representation in the Senate than those in large states. But as a young Senator John F. Kennedy stated in 1956 in opposing a knee-jerk Republican proposal to abolish the Electoral College, “(I) f it is proposed to change the balance of power of one of the elements (of the Grand Compromise), it is necessary to consider the others”. In other words, if were are to abolish one prong of the Grand Compromise (the Electoral College), then we must consider the other element as well—namely the existence of the U.S. Senate.
Thankfully for the Republic, John Kennedy was successful in defeating the Republican proposal to abolish the Electoral College, and by implication also preserving the existence of the U.S. Senate. The wisdom of defeating such a proposal was reflected in the election of 1960, in which the popular vote was so narrow (within seven tenths of one percent), that had the Electoral College been abolished and a so-called “poplar vote” system been in place, the narrow margin of popular votes would have triggered re-counts in almost every state. If one recalls the national trauma of recounts in but one state in the 2000 election—Florida—one can imagine the national nightmare of recounts and court challenges in all 50 states under a popular vote system. Indeed, it has been estimated that without the Electoral College, it would have taken at least 6-9 months before a popular vote winner could be declared, if then. Thankfully, the wisdom of the Electoral College was vindicated when John F. Kennedy was declared the winner by virtue of an overwhelming Electoral College victory. Nixon didn’t even bother to contest the election, despite substantial evidence of vote fraud in Chicago, and despite winning the popular vote, because he knew that even if he won Illinois, Kennedy’s margin of victory in the Electoral College would still have resulted in Kennedy’s election. Indeed, without the Electoral College, Trump would almost certainly have had a claim to countless recounts in every state because of the narrow margin of popular votes in favor of Clinton.
As the centuries pass, and Americans have become accustomed to almost instant winners in the Electoral College (except in the once in a century election in which the Electoral vote is close, as in 2000), the wisdom of the Founding Fathers has been vindicated again and again. One of the purposes of the Electoral College was to insure that support for a candidate be broad as well as deep. For example, if in the 1950’s an overwhelming popular vote support for segregationist candidate in the Deep South had resulted in a narrow popular vote margin in the country as a whole, that candidate could not have won in the Electoral College given the opposition to that candidate across the rest of the country.'
'History will not be on the side of those who seek to destroy the federalist system created by the founding Fathers. In the last 200 years, there have been more than 200 aborted attempts to undermine federalism by doing so, including 100 proposals for a so-called “popular vote”. All have failed once the catastrophic implications of such an undermining of our federal system have been understood.
Students of history may recall that Alexander Hamilton even proposed abolishing states entirely, to be replaced by arbitrary regional lines crisscrossing the new United States. Despite his great feat of stabilizing the national financial system, for which the country owes a great debt, we can be grateful that at least this proposal, along with his proposal that a president be appointed “for life” along the lines of royal succession, was wisely rejected by the Founding Fathers.'
Sour Losers? It’s Now Law. Colorado Will Allocate Their Electoral College Delegates Based On National Popular Vote Winner
How The Electoral College Saved The Day. Again. | HuffPost
The Ultimate Wisdom of the Electoral College
