Some people perseverate on the fact that Bush and Trump lost the popular vote. They claim that their presidencies are illegitamate because of that. They agitate for the elimination of the Electoral College and the implementation of a straight, popular vote.
They fail to consider the secondary effects of implementing the popular vote.
What incentive does a conservative voter currently have in California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota or New England? Many of them vote out of a sense of civic duty. Many also stay home.
If the Electoral College were replaced by the straight, popular vote then I predict there would be a massive upsurge in conservative voters in Blue states going to the poll. After all, their votes would count in the event of the straight, popular vote.
The dems would just fraud more votes to make up for it.
The Electoral college is a firewall against states that shamelessly promote fraudulent voting. How can a precinct have 100% votes for one candidate when some of them cannot tell a "D" from an "R"? The vote counting is obviously cooked.Delete
It rankles me no end every time I hear some Leftist talk about the 'popular vote'. From experience, I have found that it falls on deaf ears to even attempt to explain to them that our Constitution, which is the highest Law of the Land, explicitly stipulates that the office of President shall be decided by the Electoral College, and NOT by mob rule, which is what a 'popular vote' would be. Either their eyes glaze over, or they invariably respond with, "Yeah, but...."ReplyDelete
Instead, I boldly state that when you back out the vote totals of the illegal aliens who voted in just California alone, Trump actually won the 'popular vote' by several million votes. I do not know if this is true or not. (It probably is.) But it triggers the Leftist every time, and they end up jabbering and sputtering almost incoherently. Then I trigger them even more by saying, "You don't even want to know how badly Trump beat Hillary in the 'popular vote' when you back the illegal alien votes out of the total in the rest of the states besides just California. The Federal Election Commission estimates that it is at least ten million votes." I don't care it is true. (Again, it probably is.) But if Lefty can make shit up all the time, then I guess we can do it too, at least once in a great while. Especially if it highly triggering.
You are my hero for the next twenty-four hours.Delete
The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.Delete
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.
The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Now, the Electoral College would not prevent a candidate winning in states with 270 electoral votes from being elected President of the United StatesDelete
Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes to the statewide winner.
2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs."
SHOULD EVERY VOTE COUNT?Delete
Exclusive: Tom Tancredo supports idea ...
Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2011/11/366929/
Tom Tancredo (R-CO) noted - "it is harder to mobilize massive voter fraud on the national level without getting caught, than it is to do so in a few key states . . . The National Popular Vote make [voter fraud] a smaller [problem]."
“The only real solution is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The compact, which is completely different from what national Democrats talk about and does not abolish the Electoral College, would negate the impact of illegal immigrants in California and other sanctuary states. . . . This fully constitutional reform would do away with the built-in advantage Democrats have because only citizens can vote. . . . [C]onservatives and Republicans would actually benefit from the compact. . . . Republicans will have a better chance of winning presidential elections. Republicans will switch their strategy to focus on the red areas where people currently don't bother voting since they're not located in one of the 12 swing states.
The demographics in the swing states are changing. They're becoming more Democratic and the numbers of illegal immigrants are increasing. If we keep going with the current system, Republicans will eventually be unable to win the presidency. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an idea whose time has come.” – Rachel Alexander, Enter Stage Right
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution mandates the U.S. Census count every resident in the United States.
The current system gives "illegal immigrants" a 10 vote advantage in the Electoral College for the Democrats...because they tend to live in safe Democratic states.
An election for President based on the nationwide popular vote would eliminate the Democrat’s advantage in Electoral College members arising from the uneven distribution of non-citizens.
With the current system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), a small number of people in a closely divided “battleground” state can potentially affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.ReplyDelete
537 votes, all in one state determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
If 59,393 votes had shifted from George W. Bush to John Kerry in Ohio in 2004, Kerry would have won Ohio and thus become President, despite President Bush’s nationwide lead of 3,012,171 votes (51 times more). It would be far easier for potential fraudsters to manufacture 59,393 votes in Ohio than to manufacture 3,012,171 votes nationwide. Moreover, it would be far more difficult to conceal fraud involving three million votes.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.
The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Trump in June 2019 – Fox News interviewReplyDelete
“It’s always tougher for the Republican because, . . . the Electoral College is very much steered to the Democrats. It’s a big advantage for the Democrats. It’s very much harder for the Republicans to win.”
Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”
“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”
“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”
Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview
“I would rather have a popular vote. “
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."