Four Question for Those Who Oppose the Electoral College

[rangerrebew]

April 6, 2019
Four Question for Those Who Oppose the Electoral College
By R. E. Bowse

Have you heard?  The Electoral College is bad.  Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and others support its abolition.  On March 28, Delaware became the thirteenth state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) in which members agree to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.  The compact goes into effect only when the combined number of electoral votes of member states reaches 270, assuring their candidate victory. Legislation affixing New Mexico to the NPVIC sits on the desk of Governor Michelle Grisham (D). She's expected to sign it, giving the coalition 189 votes.

The debate surrounding this issue is another example of proponents avoiding the salient points.  I pose the following four questions to those would undo the electoral college system, with the goal of promoting clarity and focusing on the nub of the matter.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/four_question_for_those_who_oppose_the_electoral_college.html#ixzz5kJcn2CjJ
 

[jmyrlefuller]

• If you support the direct democracy of a popular vote system, do you also reject republicanism as our form of government?
• If you reject the notion of disproportional representation, do you reject the institution of the U.S. Senate?
• Parity between the states was key to ratification.  Does parity not matter anymore?
• Is a popular vote system a cure for the disease?

[Snarknado]

What it boils down to is states giving their electoral votes to CA, which produced Clinton't entire margin of "victory" in 2016. Unfortunately the blue states seem entirely on board for that.

As I've said before, one problem is the idea that one state's current legislature and governor can change the rules on the fly, maybe even after election results are in, potentially reversing the outcome in either direction.

Another issue for the courts to ponder is that states joined the union with certain assurances as to their rights and roles in federal elections - can that be circumvented without (or even with) a constitutional amendment? I hope not but who knows?

Edit> Oh and let's not forget the issue of voter fraud. It's probably already rampant in CA but currently doesn't affect the net result of their presidential vote. Change the rules so those votes do make a difference and institutionally encouraged fraud will skyrocket.

[Fishrrman]

If there's any single issue that could break this "indivisible" nation apart, it's this one.

It's the "Dred Scott" of America's coming second Civil War.

[Cyber Liberty]

• If you support the direct democracy of a popular vote system, do you also reject republicanism as our form of government?
• If you reject the notion of disproportional representation, do you reject the institution of the U.S. Senate?
• Parity between the states was key to ratification.  Does parity not matter anymore?
• Is a popular vote system a cure for the disease?

The Rats are way ahead on #2.  They want the Senate done away with also.

ETA: 

#1:  Yes, they reject the Republican system we have.  They are Democrats, we are Republicans, and their thought doesn't run any deeper than that.

#3:  Parity is too big a word, so they're against it.

#4:  A popular vote is a cure to any disease, so long as it means they win.