Hillary & Leftists: the Electoral College must go


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.

From TheHill.com:

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.



20 thoughts on “Hillary & Leftists: the Electoral College must go

  1. All true. There was great forethought and foresight by our Founding Fathers. Great debates over great and small issues. Part of the reason for the Electoral College, for those who don’t remember, is the keep Mob Rule from overtaking the country. If we get a charismatic speaker, such as Adolf Hitler for example, the masses would flock to an egregious idea that would catastrophic. The Left wants ultimate power, they want socialism, but I believe history has taught them
    nothing. It doesn’t work. One of the main problems with it is it takes money to make things work. Taking from the haves and giving to the have nots only depletes the money. The have nots aren’t contributing, only consuming, and ever their appetites increase. Socialism relies on other peoples money, what happens when the money is gone. It happened to Facist Italy, it happened to the former USSR, its happening to Greece and France.
    We must be ever vigilant and prepared to protect and defend our Constitution, each individual, or we will lose it. My oath of enlistment never expires.

    • Now, the Electoral College would not prevent a candidate winning in states with 270 electoral votes from being elected President of the United States

      Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes.
      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 538 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.”

    • Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

      Trump, October 11, 2017, on interview with Sean Hannity
      “I would rather have the 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.”

      In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

      Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969),

      Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

      • Good comment Kohler.

        To me the electoral vote means that one person’s vote counts more than another person’s, that just doesn’t seem right to me. Each vote should count for the same.

  2. The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

    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.”

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    • I simply find it odd, Kohler, that only when they lose do Leftists wish to change the system. There would no discussion whatsoever about the Electoral College had Hillary taken the election. People would have continued to say that Yale is better.


      • In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

        Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

        Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

        The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
        It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
        Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).
        The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

        It changes state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

  3. In 2012, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), voters in just 60 counties and DC could have elected the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters.

    Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

    With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

    But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included 7 states have voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 states have voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

    With National Popular Vote, it’s not the size of any given state, it’s the size of their “margin” that will matter.

    In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
    * Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
    * New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
    * Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
    * North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
    * California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
    * Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
    * New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

    To put these numbers in perspective,
    Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
    Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.
    8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

  4. With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state’s or district’s electoral votes.

    Since 1828, one in six states have cast their Electoral College votes for a candidate who failed to win the support of 50 percent of voters in their state

    Few legislative bills have been introduced in state legislatures in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation’s 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any widespread public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

    If the current Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.

    Since 1824 there have been 17 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.– including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 and 1996), and Trump.

    Americans, generally, do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

  5. If you’re a Republican in a blue state or a Democrat in a red state, your vote for president doesn’t matter to your candidate.

    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 bill would replace 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 a system guaranteeing 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.

    Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    In 2016, the Electoral College system effectively silenced 54 million Americans whose votes did not help their candidates in any way.

    The bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now their votes don’t matter to their candidate.

    In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters were minority party voters in their states. They didn’t help their candidates in any way.

    And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don’t matter to presidential candidates.

  6. Perfect. So we’ll turn things over to Los Angeles, Cook, Harris, Maricopa, San Diego, Miami-Dade and Kings counties so that Leftists may be elected in perpetuity.



    • The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

      Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

      16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

      16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
      The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

      The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

    • Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

      In 2000, 537 popular votes in Florida determined that the candidate who had 537,179 less national popular votes would win.

  7. That said, all other things considered as well, there is a perfect place in hell reserved for Hillary Rodham Clinton; the road is clear, unobstructed, and the gates are beginning to creak open in anticipation of her flaming arrival, Satan gleeful and knowing she will do yet more damage on this mortal coil before she departs.

    It’s in her contract, he knows.


  8. Hillary should be thankful that Trump won the election. Had she been elected, she would be dead by now along with many other Democrats/Marxists/Progressives/Communists.

  9. Pingback: BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday, November 7th, 2017: Electoral College Special with Dr Michael Jones | Bloviating Zeppelin

Comments are closed.