In defense of the Electoral College

[Sunsettommy]

We live in a REPUBLIC, which is why the Three branches of government, and freedom, rule of law exist. Now we see miserable leftist losers wants to trash all the protections for the singular purpose of winning an election, but the freedom and rule of law will be gone and the nation no longer united.

That is what will happen eventually as too many idiots never learn from history and revert to their inner selfish ugliness to force corruption onto the rest of us.

American Thinker

November 1, 2020
In defense of the Electoral College
By Don Brown

Excerpt:

In the last twenty years, Democrats have twice lost presidential elections when the Electoral College has “trumped” the popular vote, leading to Republican victories. First came George W. Bush’s presidential victory over Al Gore in 2000, then Trump’s shocker over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Thus, radical Democrats demand the abolition of the Electoral College.

“It’s undemocratic,” they say. “The will of the people should rule,” they cry.

Yes, it’s undemocratic, which, believe it or not, is an exceptionally good thing.

That’s because the United States is not, and never has been a “democracy.”


The word “democracy” is not in the Constitution. In fact, the founders hated pure, unrestrained democracies.

Instead, Article 4, Section 4, states that the Constitution provides a “Republican” form of government. Not a democracy. There’s a difference.

LINK

 

[candycorn]

We live in a REPUBLIC, which is why the Three branches of government, and freedom, rule of law exist. Now we see miserable leftist losers wants to trash all the protections for the singular purpose of winning an election, but the freedom and rule of law will be gone and the nation no longer united.

That is what will happen eventually as too many idiots never learn from history and revert to their inner selfish ugliness to force corruption onto the rest of us.

American Thinker

November 1, 2020
In defense of the Electoral College
By Don Brown

Excerpt:

In the last twenty years, Democrats have twice lost presidential elections when the Electoral College has “trumped” the popular vote, leading to Republican victories. First came George W. Bush’s presidential victory over Al Gore in 2000, then Trump’s shocker over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Thus, radical Democrats demand the abolition of the Electoral College.

“It’s undemocratic,” they say. “The will of the people should rule,” they cry.

Yes, it’s undemocratic, which, believe it or not, is an exceptionally good thing.

That’s because the United States is not, and never has been a “democracy.”


The word “democracy” is not in the Constitution. In fact, the founders hated pure, unrestrained democracies.

Instead, Article 4, Section 4, states that the Constitution provides a “Republican” form of government. Not a democracy. There’s a difference.

LINK

If it’s a question of the current EC or direct election by popular vote, I’ll stick with what we got.

That being said, the current EC needs to be amended. The President elect should have to attain both the majority of the EC vote as well as the plurality of the popular vote.

 

[Sunsettommy]

We live in a REPUBLIC, which is why the Three branches of government, and freedom, rule of law exist. Now we see miserable leftist losers wants to trash all the protections for the singular purpose of winning an election, but the freedom and rule of law will be gone and the nation no longer united.

That is what will happen eventually as too many idiots never learn from history and revert to their inner selfish ugliness to force corruption onto the rest of us.

American Thinker

November 1, 2020
In defense of the Electoral College
By Don Brown

Excerpt:

In the last twenty years, Democrats have twice lost presidential elections when the Electoral College has “trumped” the popular vote, leading to Republican victories. First came George W. Bush’s presidential victory over Al Gore in 2000, then Trump’s shocker over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Thus, radical Democrats demand the abolition of the Electoral College.

“It’s undemocratic,” they say. “The will of the people should rule,” they cry.

Yes, it’s undemocratic, which, believe it or not, is an exceptionally good thing.

That’s because the United States is not, and never has been a “democracy.”


The word “democracy” is not in the Constitution. In fact, the founders hated pure, unrestrained democracies.

Instead, Article 4, Section 4, states that the Constitution provides a “Republican” form of government. Not a democracy. There’s a difference.

LINK

If it’s a question of the current EC or direct election by popular vote, I’ll stick with what we got.

That being said, the current EC needs to be amended. The President elect should have to attain both the majority of the EC vote as well as the plurality of the popular vote.

Really you prefer a contradiction position, how does that work?

=====

ASK FACTCHECK
The Reason for the Electoral College

By Joe Miller
Posted on February 11, 2008
LINK


The words of the FOUNDING fathers makes clear why they wanted the EC in place, it was to prevent factional control of the nation. The 3/5th rule was abolished in 1860's. The slave states didn't benefit from it anyway.

 

[candycorn]

We live in a REPUBLIC, which is why the Three branches of government, and freedom, rule of law exist. Now we see miserable leftist losers wants to trash all the protections for the singular purpose of winning an election, but the freedom and rule of law will be gone and the nation no longer united.

That is what will happen eventually as too many idiots never learn from history and revert to their inner selfish ugliness to force corruption onto the rest of us.

American Thinker

November 1, 2020
In defense of the Electoral College
By Don Brown

Excerpt:

In the last twenty years, Democrats have twice lost presidential elections when the Electoral College has “trumped” the popular vote, leading to Republican victories. First came George W. Bush’s presidential victory over Al Gore in 2000, then Trump’s shocker over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Thus, radical Democrats demand the abolition of the Electoral College.

“It’s undemocratic,” they say. “The will of the people should rule,” they cry.

Yes, it’s undemocratic, which, believe it or not, is an exceptionally good thing.

That’s because the United States is not, and never has been a “democracy.”


The word “democracy” is not in the Constitution. In fact, the founders hated pure, unrestrained democracies.

Instead, Article 4, Section 4, states that the Constitution provides a “Republican” form of government. Not a democracy. There’s a difference.

LINK

If it’s a question of the current EC or direct election by popular vote, I’ll stick with what we got.

That being said, the current EC needs to be amended. The President elect should have to attain both the majority of the EC vote as well as the plurality of the popular vote.

Really you prefer a contradiction position, how does that work?

=====

ASK FACTCHECK
The Reason for the Electoral College

By Joe Miller
Posted on February 11, 2008
LINK


The words of the FOUNDING fathers makes clear why they wanted the EC in place, it was to prevent factional control of the nation. The 3/5th rule was abolished in 1860's. The slave states didn't benefit from it anyway.

You’re only telling part of the story.

one of the primary reasons for the EC was to keep illiterate uninformed masses from electing persons who would be poor stewards of the affairs of state. That’s changed. With it...should change the EC

 

[Sunsettommy]

We live in a REPUBLIC, which is why the Three branches of government, and freedom, rule of law exist. Now we see miserable leftist losers wants to trash all the protections for the singular purpose of winning an election, but the freedom and rule of law will be gone and the nation no longer united.

That is what will happen eventually as too many idiots never learn from history and revert to their inner selfish ugliness to force corruption onto the rest of us.

American Thinker

November 1, 2020
In defense of the Electoral College
By Don Brown

Excerpt:

In the last twenty years, Democrats have twice lost presidential elections when the Electoral College has “trumped” the popular vote, leading to Republican victories. First came George W. Bush’s presidential victory over Al Gore in 2000, then Trump’s shocker over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Thus, radical Democrats demand the abolition of the Electoral College.

“It’s undemocratic,” they say. “The will of the people should rule,” they cry.

Yes, it’s undemocratic, which, believe it or not, is an exceptionally good thing.

That’s because the United States is not, and never has been a “democracy.”


The word “democracy” is not in the Constitution. In fact, the founders hated pure, unrestrained democracies.

Instead, Article 4, Section 4, states that the Constitution provides a “Republican” form of government. Not a democracy. There’s a difference.

LINK

If it’s a question of the current EC or direct election by popular vote, I’ll stick with what we got.

That being said, the current EC needs to be amended. The President elect should have to attain both the majority of the EC vote as well as the plurality of the popular vote.

Really you prefer a contradiction position, how does that work?

=====

ASK FACTCHECK
The Reason for the Electoral College

By Joe Miller
Posted on February 11, 2008
LINK


The words of the FOUNDING fathers makes clear why they wanted the EC in place, it was to prevent factional control of the nation. The 3/5th rule was abolished in 1860's. The slave states didn't benefit from it anyway.

You’re only telling part of the story.

one of the primary reasons for the EC was to keep illiterate uninformed masses from electing persons who would be poor stewards of the affairs of state. That’s changed. With it...should change the EC

Your story started and ended over 200 years ago.

You ignored this about you, how come?

Really you prefer a contradiction position, how does that work?

It appears you are just the latest leftist who fails to realize the EC apportionment to the Presidential candidates are 100% based on Popular Vote.

 

[candycorn]

We live in a REPUBLIC, which is why the Three branches of government, and freedom, rule of law exist. Now we see miserable leftist losers wants to trash all the protections for the singular purpose of winning an election, but the freedom and rule of law will be gone and the nation no longer united.

That is what will happen eventually as too many idiots never learn from history and revert to their inner selfish ugliness to force corruption onto the rest of us.

American Thinker

November 1, 2020
In defense of the Electoral College
By Don Brown

Excerpt:

In the last twenty years, Democrats have twice lost presidential elections when the Electoral College has “trumped” the popular vote, leading to Republican victories. First came George W. Bush’s presidential victory over Al Gore in 2000, then Trump’s shocker over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Thus, radical Democrats demand the abolition of the Electoral College.

“It’s undemocratic,” they say. “The will of the people should rule,” they cry.

Yes, it’s undemocratic, which, believe it or not, is an exceptionally good thing.

That’s because the United States is not, and never has been a “democracy.”


The word “democracy” is not in the Constitution. In fact, the founders hated pure, unrestrained democracies.

Instead, Article 4, Section 4, states that the Constitution provides a “Republican” form of government. Not a democracy. There’s a difference.

LINK

If it’s a question of the current EC or direct election by popular vote, I’ll stick with what we got.

That being said, the current EC needs to be amended. The President elect should have to attain both the majority of the EC vote as well as the plurality of the popular vote.

Really you prefer a contradiction position, how does that work?

=====

ASK FACTCHECK
The Reason for the Electoral College

By Joe Miller
Posted on February 11, 2008
LINK


The words of the FOUNDING fathers makes clear why they wanted the EC in place, it was to prevent factional control of the nation. The 3/5th rule was abolished in 1860's. The slave states didn't benefit from it anyway.

You’re only telling part of the story.

one of the primary reasons for the EC was to keep illiterate uninformed masses from electing persons who would be poor stewards of the affairs of state. That’s changed. With it...should change the EC

Your story started and ended over 200 years ago.

You ignored this about you, how come?

My story?

Really you prefer a contradiction position, how does that work?

It appears you are just the latest leftist who fails to realize the EC apportionment to the Presidential candidates are 100% based on Popular Vote.

Not exactly; if a candidate gets 1 vote more than their competitors, they get 100% of that state's electoral votes with the exception of NE and ME. That isn't apportionment, it's winner take all.

Nobody has failed to tell me why they do not think the people on the whole should have a hand in who becomes President. No other official is elected that way....And precisely zero people thinks we should elect representatives based on a plurality of votes in different zip codes or neighborhoods.

 

[TheParser]

The Electoral College is the only way to stop the majority from riding roughshod over the minority.

Of course, the "liberals" want to abolish it.

Only the Constitution has kept this nation a relatively democratic nation for so long.

 

[candycorn]

The Electoral College is the only way to stop the majority from riding roughshod over the minority.

Of course, the "liberals" want to abolish it.

Only the Constitution has kept this nation a relatively democratic nation for so long.

Trump called for a revolution after Obama won in 2012.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Candycorn,

I have long known about the winner take all approach, but only two states moved away from that, how come New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and many other Democrat dominated states haven't changed from that approach?

What is stopping them from changing it?

Snicker......

===

Here is what I said at another forum, in reply to Crepitus no less:

"If you want to get rid of the "winner take all" method, then why not apportion the EC to the vote itself?

I would support it since it more closely match the true voting pattern of the people in the individual states. In my state which is dominantly Republican by county, but about even in population would nearly split the EC vote.

Then BOTH Presidential nominees would get some of the EC of each state."

===

Do you agree this would be an improvement?

 

[Tom8700]

If there was No electoral College it would not be the United States of American, but a centralized state. If anything each state should have the Same amount of electoral votes. All states of the USA are equal. The current System is already ludacrisly heavily in favor of the highly populated states.

 

[candycorn]

Candycorn,

I have long known about the winner take all approach, but only two states moved away from that, how come New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and many other Democrat dominated states haven't changed from that approach?

What is stopping them from changing it?

Snicker......

===

Here is what I said at another forum, in reply to Crepitus no less:

"If you want to get rid of the "winner take all" method, then why not apportion the EC to the vote itself?

I would support it since it more closely match the true voting pattern of the people in the individual states. In my state which is dominantly Republican by county, but about even in population would nearly split the EC vote.

Then BOTH Presidential nominees would get some of the EC of each state."

===

Do you agree this would be an improvement?

I would not support it because it is not an improvement. How do you divide the states with 3 votes and a 50/50 split? Are we going to get into awarding 1.6 and 1.4 votes via apportionment? Also, anytime you have an odd number of electors, you will have the same possibility unless you have like 33 electoral votes and the voting ratio is 66% vs 33%; 22 votes for the winner, 11 for the loser. Too much left to chance.

Besides, the reason to include the PV is to give the people a direct say in who their president is. Why in the world would any American be against that?