Oh No! Here we go again.
The smearing, stoning, and stomping on the US Constitution is happening again.
Nope. Happening still.
Now, there’s talk among the Democratic presidential candidates to abolish the electoral college.
It has to make you wonder at this point, when will the barrage end? Each day brings a new chunk of phlegm, spit at the US Constitution. With Judge Kavanaugh, it was rule of law and due process; with open borders and catch and release, immigration laws are stomped on; with big tech, censorship is now an every day occurrence; the states are going through the back door to limit gun ownership; and now this.
What’s messed up here is that there aren’t enough people who understand how the electoral college works. The people who do know how it works are the ones who want to abolish it. There’s your irony. Candidates Warren, Booker, and Gillibrand know that it will help the Democrat party for a long time.
Hmm. Do open borders have anything to do with this play on wrecking state equality in the right to choose a president? Or is equality only meant for cultural diversity?
All someone needs to do is ask Elizabeth Warren why the electoral college needs to be abolished? As a politician, she will come up with a political answer, but probably not the honest answer.
She and her cohorts will say that the outcome isn’t fair when you win the popular vote but still can’t be president, without explaining the mechanics of how the electoral college truly works to show how Trump won in 2016.
This is not what it seems. It’s a scam. Abolishing the electoral college takes away the equality of the states in electing a president, and it can give a candidate the presidency by winning a minority of states.
Remember, 2016 was only three years ago. Hillary Clinton only won 19 states while Trump won 31. Even though she won the popular vote, do you really think Hillary deserved to become president by winning less than 40 percent of the states?
Anyway, here is a reminder on how the electoral college works.
The electoral vote is the only deciding vote for the presidency, not the overall popular vote. And this is only the fourth time in US history that the winner of the electoral vote made it to the presidency without winning the popular vote. Past elections when this has happened were 1876, 1888 and 2000.
Does this mean that the vote was rigged on Election Day, 2016? Does it mean that the outcome wasn’t fair?
It doesn’t mean either. With no electoral majority, Hillary loses. It’s fair and extremely square, and it’s stated word for word in the US Constitution in Article II, section 1.
That doesn’t mean the popular vote is worthless, as some politicians might say in the near future leading up to 2020. The electoral vote is based on the popular vote in each state.
Here’s an example: In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in California with 7,362,490 votes to Donald Trump’s 3,916,209. Because Clinton won the popular vote in California, she won all 55 electoral votes for that state.
Trump won Texas with a popular vote of 4,681,590 to Clinton’s 3,867,816. So Trump won all 38 electoral votes for that state.
The winner of the popular vote in a state is the winner of the electoral votes for that state. It is that simple. Don’t let these clown politicians steer you into believing it’s too difficult to understand by blowing smoke at you.
Those complaining about the electoral college don’t have the best understanding of how the process works. The popular vote — your vote, if you vote at all – does actually count. But it counts only toward the popular vote in your state. It doesn’t count toward a nationwide tally of popular votes. If the electoral college was abolished, the most populous states would have an unfair grip on the executive branch of government. States with small populations will have less of a say in choosing an executive or no say at all.
The US Constitution spells all of it out very plainly. “Each state shall appoint,…a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress.’’ (Article II, sect. 1)
So, the amount of electors is somewhat based on the population of each state. The number of members in the House of Representatives from any particular state is based on the population of that state. For example, California is the most populated state in the country and has 53 representatives in the House. This means that 53 of its 55 electors are based on the amount of representatives the state is allowed to have. The other 2 electors are equal to the number of senators. Every state has two senators.
In a thinly populated state like Wyoming, there is only one representative in the House and two senators, equaling three electors.
This is the way you could win the overall popular vote and still not secure the White House. Hillary had more popular votes, but she didn’t win many of the states with fewer electors — like Wisconsin and North Carolina — to rack up the required 270 electoral votes to win. Meanwhile, Trump won a few of the key states with high electoral vote counts, but he also won a lot of states with fewer electors. Because of that scenario, Trump won more electoral votes but lost the popular vote. And when elections are closely contested, there can be split decisions between popular and electoral votes, like the 2000 and 2016 elections.
The Electoral College was written into the US Constitution in 1787. It tries to guarantee that no candidate can become president by winning just a few highly populated states. That Clinton won more than 50 percent of the popular vote while losing over 60 percent of the states is why the electoral college was invented. To change it would need a constitutional amendment.