After Gore and now Hildabeast, there are many on the left who would like get rid of the EC and stick with the popular vote. Of course that means CA and NY could easily decide all of the elections and much of the South and Midwest would be marginalized. What does everyone think?
I think the electoral college is old and outdated. I think it needs to be examined, I'm not saying scrap it by the way and honestly, it probably won't ever change because D's will want it to favor them and R's will want it to favor them. So probably a pointless conversation.
electoral college is the only way california still has an ungodly 55 electoral votes along with new york at 29 giving the democrats an unfair 84-0 head start republicans wont even be able to count on texas in another 20 years with the influx of mexicans, the margin of victory this election was less than 10 percent lets give hillary a fucking participation trophy
Caller: “Right. Yeah, because the Founders – the way I understand it – wanted to prevent the concentration of power in just a few largely populated states with a specific ideology.” Levin: “That’s correct.” Caller: “So you take California, and they got millions of people over there. They’re very liberal. They could dominate the nation, but this prevents it.” Levin: “Well, California, the East Coast, and you’re exactly right. Because they didn’t want factionalism. They wanted diversity in terms of the states, but not factionalism. “So let me ask you something: If we didn’t have an electoral college, how many campaign visits would there have been to New Hampshire?” Caller: “Exactly.” Levin: “Zero.” Caller: “Right.” Levin: “Or Nevada? Zero. “Or North Dakota? Zero. “Or a number of states? Zero “And so you’re right. You would’ve had essentially the East Coast, the West Coast, maybe the Chicago area and the Houston area, things like that going on, but you certainly would not have candidates campaigning all over the country. So they were exactly right in what they did. … “And that’s the other thing people don’t understand. We are a federal republic. We’re not a democracy. And so the states were to have a primary role in this republic, a primary role – a bigger role than the federal government. “That’s why I don’t buy, ‘Oh, we’re nationalist.’ No we’re not. We’re federalist.” Caller: “The folly of the 17thAmendment, because that removed power from the states.” Levin: “Yes. Yeah, wipe them out because, you know, as you well know, the lawmaking process, the states, where the senate was to represent the state legislature.” Caller: “Exactly, and so they no longer got to pick their senators, so they lost power.” Levin: “And the state is cut out. Caller: “Yep.” Levin: “Now the federal departments and agencies are more powerful than the states.” Caller: “Well, my response to everybody that was questioning me was it did was it was supposed to do. It provided power to the states.” Levin: “That’s correct. And really it’s helpful to the people because we’re a big country. We have a lot of territory. We have a lot of geographic diversity. We have a diverse population and so forth. You can’t just leave it up to, basically, six, eight, ten states and three or four regions to select the president. “Alright, my friend, thank you for your call. Was absolutely brilliant, the electoral college, which is exactly why it comes under attack by the statist progressives and other buffoons who don’t even know what they’re talking about.” He said it better than I could have.
Throw in Illinois with their additional 20 electorates and just 3 states in the union give Libs a huge 104-0 head start.
And that is the problem with folks like @LaSalleAve they dismiss the premise because of where it came from. Pay no attention to the message which is absolute fact and kill the messenger. Typical
