Because it did not work to their advantage.
Immediate question: had Hillary Clinton won the presidential election, would she and fellow Demorats, Leftists and the American Media Maggots be calling for the obliteration of the Electoral College? You and I both know the obvious answer to that question.
Hillary has publicly stated she wants the Electoral College removed wholesale. From CNN.com:
Clinton: It’s time to abolish the Electoral College
by Dan Merica
New York (CNN) Hillary Clinton told CNN on Wednesday that it is time to abolish the Electoral College, part of a sweeping interview where the former Democratic nominee sought to explain why she lost the 2016 election.
Clinton, in the interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, displayed her animus for fired FBI Director James Comey, reflected on her love for the people — namely former President Bill Clinton — who helped her get through the crushing loss and blasted the arcane election body that she believes helped Donald Trump win the presidency.
I think it needs to be eliminated,” Clinton said of the Electoral College. “I’d like to see us move beyond it, yes.”
Hillary, of course, also referred to the 2000 election in which Al Gore lost to George Bush. But again, had Gore won and had Hillary won, would we be having this conversation? Of course not. Leftists won’t be honest and clear.
Tucker Carlson weighed in on the topic with a Demorat opponent.
Wanting the Electoral College gone, is that fanciful conjecture or is there more? From FoxNews.com:
Still bruised from Clinton loss, left takes aim at Electoral College in court
A liberal-led push to overhaul the Electoral College could be moving from the op-ed pages to the courtroom, as a Harvard professor who flirted with a dark-horse Democratic presidential bid last year vows litigation to change the system.
Criticism of the Electoral College was resurgent in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss. Clinton recently said she wants the system eliminated.
The latest effort isn’t aimed at dismantling the structure entirely – but rather, the winner-take-all system used by 48 states in awarding electors, which ends up focusing presidential races on a handful of battlegrounds.
With a winner-take-all, most of America is ignored,” professor Lawrence Lessig said in previewing his legal case – which, like any challenge to the Electoral College, faces a steep uphill climb.
Does the phrase “Constitutionally Federated Republic” mean anything to anyone any more? Because, after all, we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. It’s in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are the same documents that Leftists and Demorats wish to eliminate wholesale, when they gather sufficient power to do so.
Hillary Clinton, Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots aren’t the only ones wishing to eliminate the Electoral College. So is a member of the US Supreme Court, and she makes no bones about it.
Ginsburg: I would back changing the Electoral College
by Mark Hensch
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she would support changing the Electoral College.
“There are some things I would like to change, one is the Electoral College,” she said late Monday at Stanford Law School in California, according to CNN.
“But that would require a constitutional amendment, and amending our Constitution is powerfully hard to do,” she added.
Her words immured here.
Ginsburg’s remarks follow President Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court’s vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch sits on Colorado’s 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
The Demorats don’t understand the Electoral College — with purpose and, in this instance, due to outright ignorance.
Top Democrat Wrongly Asserts Electoral College Isn’t in Constitution
by Henry Rodgers
The head of the national Democratic Party incorrectly said the Electoral College is not “a creation of the Constitution.”
In a lecture at Indiana University Law School, Tom Perez, a lawyer who is chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said the Electoral College “doesn’t have to be there” and asserted that the national popular vote should be the principal standard.
Once again, because Demorats have a recent history of losing the Electoral College. Plain and simple.
The above map, if the Electoral College were to be eliminated, indicates which population areas would choose the president. The rest of the country could go to hell and would make no difference. Are you ready to cede a minuscule portion of the country such power? Did you not hear or read of what our Founding Fathers warned?
Are the clouds starting to part? But let’s continue with the lies of Perez.
“The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn’t have to be there,” said Perez, who was secretary of labor during President Barack Obama’s second term and is a former assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights.
Gospel, right? Stated by Demorat/Leftist Leslie Marshall so it must be true, correct?
Article II of the Constitution, however, clearly outlines the electoral process, dictating that states must appoint electors who meet and vote for the president:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Damn. Those pesky laws again. Those terribly inconvenient founding documents. Oh how they get in the way of a true political coup. And in the way of Tom Perez. Are you beginning to identify some kind of a trend or pattern?
The House of Representatives provides small states with some serious concern, as 435 humans representing the so-called popular vote overwhelm small states. Then the Senate weighs in with true equanimity: one state, two Senators. No matter what. Checks and balances, anyone?
Isn’t it odd how Marshall purposely fails to mention this aspect?
Here is another aspect that Demorats and Leftists conveniently decide to avoid.
In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.
No kvetching there, eh wot, from the Demorats? Was there?
This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.
This means that, in California for example, Proposition 187 would have won. It would be the law of that land. Uh-oh.
It would also mean that Mexicans or Muslims could procreate to the extent that their sheer numbers overwhelmed the politics. Oh wait. That’s happening now in Europe and becoming entrenched in the US. Caucasoids are so free that they are choosing Free Cheese over procreation. Ain’t it great?
Demography is truly prophecy.
But what happens when demography overrules the Demorat Caucasoids now and in potential future power? How will they respond to the back of the bus?
Identity politics, y’all.
Even Slate.com, for fuck’s sake, advocates the retention of the Electoral College.
Can there be a true “democracy”? Of course there can’t. No one is thinking of dissolving the House or the Senate.
What we know now is: When Demorats and Leftist lose, every manner of cheating is back on the table.
Why do Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots demand elimination of the Electoral College?
Simple. Because it is one of the final steps impeding their being elected in perpetuity and taking control of the United States once and for all.
Our Founding Fathers were wise beyond their years.
Even then they saw this issue brewing.