After Electoral Votes Tallied, New York Times Makes MASSIVE Announcement

0
225
electoral-college-voter-supression-sign
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest

Now that they’ve lost – again, liberals are attacking the on Democratic institution that they blame for Donald Trump’s victory: The Electoral College.

As the electors gathered in their respective state Capitols and cast their ballot, it was clear that the handful of “faithless electors” (most of whom denied Hillary Clinton a vote) would fail to keep  Trump fro being elected president.

This was the final attempt by the bed-wetting Left and they’re now faced with four years where one party controls every lever of federal government – and two-thirds of all statehouses.

So they’re sick of it. They’re demanding a national popular vote where liberals in California can determine the president every election. Without Hillary’s overwhelming victory in California, Trump would have won the popular vote.

They say the American people want to get rid of the Electoral College, citing a series of polls indicating public support.

“By overwhelming majorities, Americans would prefer to elect the president by direct popular vote, not filtered through the antiquated mechanism of the Electoral College,” the paper said. “They understand, on a gut level, the basic fairness of awarding the nation’s highest office on the same basis as every other elected office — to the person who gets the most votes.”’

Of course, the Constitution wasn’t written by the vote of a mob, or by public opinion. If it was, we would have a very different country, where important but sparsely populated states would receive almost zero attention by Washington.

READ MORE:
The New York Times: Time to End the Electoral College
The Washington Examiner: New York Times: End antiquated Electoral College

On Monday, Electors cast their ballots for Donald Trump, giving him 304 votes, well above the required 270. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, won the popular vote by about 2.8 million.

The Times Tries to justify their endorsement saying that a popular vote would simply make every vote count the same. But an “equal” vote doesn’t always mean a “fair” vote.

Conservative opponents of a direct vote say it would give an unfair edge to large, heavily Democratic cities and states. But why should the votes of Americans in California or New York count for less than those in Idaho or Texas? A direct popular vote would treat all Americans equally, no matter where they live — including, by the way, Republicans in San Francisco and Democrats in Corpus Christi, whose votes are currently worthless. The system as it now operates does a terrible job of representing the nation’s demographic and geographic diversity. Almost 138 million Americans went to the polls this year, but Mr. Trump secured his Electoral College victory thanks to fewer than 80,000 votes across three states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

“For most reasonable people,” the Times said, “it’s hard to understand why the loser of the popular vote should wind up running the country.”

If by “reasonable” they mean “those who don’t understand the Constitution,” then they’re right.

Good thing the Times does not determine our Electoral system. What a disaster that would be.

Like us on Facebook – USA Liberty News

Source: thefederalistpapers.org

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest

LEAVE A REPLY