For John, BLUF: The Republic has used the Electoral College for over two hundred years and the result has been satisfactory. What we don't know is that will happen if it goes away. The result could destroy support for the Constitutional arrangement in some parts of the nation. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Here is the sub-headline:
At the NYT, hard Leftist Michelle Goldberg explains that impeachment offsets the tyranny of the Electoral College, giving losers their rightful victory.
Of course it does. This is all about sore losers, a pitiful subset of society, Bless their little hearts.
From The Bookworm Room, by the Bookworm, 20 December 2019.
Here is the lede plus one:
You’ve probably had your fill about impeachment. You’ve read the articles about its being a kabuki farce, about Pelosi’s unconstitutional quid pro quo demands on the Senate, about the plan to leave the impeachment hanging in the House without ever offering Trump the chance to defend himself, about the hypocrisy of the rushed vote (“this is constitutionally an emergency”) followed by the Emily Litella “never mind,” about the Democrats’ plan to smear Trump’s name in the history books, about the effort to disable Trump (“the impeached President”) from appointing a Supreme Court justice in the event RBG passes on his watch, and about all the other silly stuff that Schiffty, Pelosi, Nadler, and their ravening pack of political wild animals have imposed on America.This is about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (“NPVIC”). This agreement between a number of states would thwart the Constitutionality mandated method of electing the President by finding a new way of binding Electors. That said, I can see problems with "faithless Electors.
Still, I have one more thing to add to the mix for today I read an honest opinion piece from the New York Times. In it, you get a window straight into the Leftist rejection of our system of governance. And no, I don’t usually read the New York Times, because I have better things to do with my life, but I couldn’t let this one go by.
All that said, the problem with 2016 is that Candidate Hillary Clinton didn't receive the majority of the vote, as the table below shows:
|Trump / Pence||Republican||62,984,828||46.09%|
|Clinton / Kaine||Democratic||65,853,514||48.18%|
|Johnson / Weld||Libertarian||4,489,341||3.28%|
|Stein / Baraka||Green||1,457,218||1.07%|
|McMullin / Finn||Independent||731,991||0.54%|
|Castle / Bradley||Constitution||203,090||0.15%|
There are two kinds of voting majorities. In the United States we say "plurality" and "majority" (with British English the terms are "relative majority" and "absolute majority"). With regard to the popular vote, Ms Clinton won a plurality, but not a majority. If she had won sufficient electoral votes, Mrs Clinton would still be a minority President.
If, and to me it is a big if, we want to go with the popular vote we will need to either have a runoff, to get someone to a majority of the votes, or we can go with "Rank Choice Voting".
What we know for sure is that Mrs Clinton and her running mate, Mr Kaine, absolutely failed to win a majority of the votes cast. To whine about the Electoral College is to quibble over how any given candidate failed to win straight out.
For the Democrats there is a so far hidden problem with NPVIC. Candidate Trump could lose California and New York by small margins and win big elsewhere and thus get a plurality of the popular vote, thus beating whoever the Democrats throw up in 2020.
Sadly, our legislators, down on Beacon Hill, in the Great and Glorious General Court, voted to joint the NPVIC.nbsp; People we elected. Sad. Very sad.
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff