Sen. Lindsey Graham on Electoral College: 'Democrats want rural America to go away'

The upshot of losing the Electoral College is that voters who chose the California legislature and NY Mayor De Blasio will choose your President. Every morning you will wake up, wondering what your government will do to you next. TD

Washington Times  "Sen. Lindsey Graham slammed progressives Tuesday for pushing to end the Electoral College system, suggesting they want to do away with middle America.

“ 'The desire to abolish the Electoral College is driven by the idea Democrats want rural America to go away politically,” the South Carolina Republican tweeted. 

"His comment comes in response to 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who said in a town hall hosted by CNN Monday the system by which Americans have elected presidents for the past 230 years must come to an end.  

“ 'That means getting rid of the Electoral College,” the Massachusetts Democrat said.

“ 'Everybody ought to come here and ask for your vote,” she told the Mississippi crowd.

"President George W. Bush won the 2000 election against former Vice President Al Gore via the Electoral College, as did President Trump against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016. Both men lost the popular vote.

"Progressive voters, still sour over the 2016 upset, are pushing Democrats to eliminate the system laid out in the Constitution for electing the president and vice president." .  .  .

"Make every vote count", Elizabeth Warren says? If you live in a red state, don't even bother to vote; you'll never see a candidate in your area. TD

---

A college under siege; Losers want to trash the Electoral College, but reality says they can’t

. . . Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founders . . . defended the Electoral College because it would be a source of stability, and that “an intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.”

Washington Times 

 . . . "The Founding Fathers, federalists all, were determined that the president should be elected by the states. The states, as Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, established the federal government, not the other way around. The Electoral College is the way the Founders preserved the primacy of the states. Though every state now selects its electors by popular vote, the states are free to choose another method, such as enabling their legislatures to select the electors.

"The losers this year are leading the charge for change, such as it is. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, which voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, has introduced a constitutional amendment to eliminate the college, and hundreds of thousands of Americans — some of them voters and many who no doubt are not — have signed online petitions in behalf of Mrs. Boxer’s amendment.

"Al Gore, who lost the Electoral College but won the national popular vote in 2000, supported the college when late in that campaign it appeared briefly that he might lose the popular vote and win the electoral votes, has changed his tune." . . .

This May Shock You: The Electoral College Is Essential For Our Politics

Forbes   "Critics of the much-maligned Electoral College overlook one of its fundamental virtues: tamping down dangerously divisive politics. Advocates of replacing this “18th-century anachronism” with a straight popular vote implicitly assume the current two-party system would remain intact and that the candidate with the most individual votes—instead of electoral votes—would win the White House. That’s the way things work for every other elected office in the U.S.; why wouldn’t it be so for the most important one of all? 

"But the basic two-party arrangement we take for granted exists only because of the Electoral College. To win the presidency, a candidate has to appeal to people across the country. A nationwide coalition is essential to gaining a majority in the Electoral College. A narrow sectional or special-interest base simply won’t cut it. That’s why our parties are collections of many diverse interests and backgrounds, reflecting the character of this continental nation whose citizens, or forebears, have come from all corners of the world and reflect a wide array of cultures and beliefs. It’s why supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties are so often uneasy with one another. GOP voters in the Northeast, for instance, who tend to emphasize economic issues such as low taxes, are put off by social conservatives. 

"The system puts a premium on moderation. Yes, candidates can advocate bold programs, but they have to do so in ways that don’t alienate more tepid members of their party, not to mention independent voters. A radical idea usually goes through what might be called a marinating process, during which time people become accustomed to the notion, and even then it has often become a watered-down version of the original." . . . More...

Or...go with the "popular vote", letting the East and West Coast dwellers make the choice for us.

"Here's the basic Electoral College map, with states that Clinton won in blue and states that Trump won in red"

Business Insider

Why do the Democrats always want to change the Electoral College after they lose?

2016 US presidential election results

The map above tells us that with the popular vote, blue areas would select our president, giving Hillary the win.

Silvio Canto, Jr  "It's not 2000, but it sort of sounds like it.  Senator Boxer, who is retiring, has introduced a bill to end the Electoral College, as we see in this report from CNN:

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election, is set to introduce a Senate bill that aims to end the Electoral College.

Boxer announced in a statement on Tuesday that the bill, which she planned to introduce later Tuesday afternoon, would determine the winner of presidential elections by the outcome of the popular vote.

She cited President-elect Donald Trump's victory in the Electoral College despite Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's apparent popular vote advantage.

"Of course, we don't really know who won the popular vote.  We have unofficial calculations based on state results.  There is no such thing as a certified final popular vote figure.

"Let's file this one under the "grandstanding" category, since Mrs. Boxer will be gone soon.   

"The real challenge is that such a change will actually require a constitutional amendment.  In other words, as we learned in our U.S. history high school class, such an amendment would require two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and then in three quarters of states. 

"It is more likely that the Cubs will repeat as World Series champs than that we will see this change anytime soon.

"All of this uproar concerning the Electoral College raises two questions:

"First, why didn't Democrats vote for this when they had 60 votes in the Senate and a nice majority in the House, circa 2009-2010?  I guess they were busy pushing Obamacare through at any cost.

"Second, why didn't Senator Boxer call on Mrs. Clinton to say she would not accept the presidency unless it came with a popular vote?  I guess walking the walk is not something Democrats do!

"This "abolish" campaign will pass.

"After that, the Democrats may actually get down to understanding why they lost.  It's not hard at all.  Blue-collar workers would rather hear about jobs than global warming!"

She's running: Hillary Clinton finally notices the electoral college matters

Monica Showalter  "After years of deriding the electoral college and touting her own success in winning the popular vote, Hillary Clinton is talking another story.

"According to a report in The Hill:

Hillary Clinton on Monday urged Democrats to choose a nominee who can win the Electoral College in 2020.

 "We have to hope that whoever ends up nominated can win the Electoral College," she said at a discussion of her book, "The Book of Gutsy Women," in Denver.

 "I think several of our candidates could win the popular vote but as I know ... that's not enough," added the 2016 Democratic nominee. 

 "I don't think we have a choice; we have to win" in 2020, she said, speaking alongside her daughter and co-author Chelsea Clinton at a sold-out event. 

"That intense focus on doing what it takes to actually win an election, instead of just count on solid-blue cities and states to carry the tally and yell victory, which she did earlier, insisting the whole thing was proof she really won the 2016 election, does signal some kind of change in thinking. As recently as Halloween, she was touting the importance of the popular vote. Something happened in the last five days while she's been out on book tour, touting some dreary book called "Gutsy Women about the importance of being left wing seems to have seeped into her frame of mind.

"Might it be that Joe Biden is flailing in the general election, the ooze of corruption from his son Hunter's doings, seeping closer and closer to Biden's own podium? Might it be that Wall Street is giving a Bronx cheer to the Democrats' reportedly best hope, Elizabeth Warren? Hillary Clinton never had problems shaking down that crowd. Might it be the spirited rallies and extreme enthusiasm seen at Trump rallies, way out in the deplorable flyover country, that place Clinton has long derided as not quite as good as her beloved blue cities? Most every hard-nosed observer of the political scene thinks Trump can beat every face on the Democrats' remaining roster. It could explain her sudden awakening to the importance, if not value, of the electoral college. 

"In any case, as her convenient book tour goes on, it appears she's getting warmer to the idea of running for president again. She's obviously convinced she could do it because she's now looking at practical ways of winning, the ones she ignored back when she was refusing to go to Wisconsin. Townhall has a pretty good writeup with some choice tweets here.

"She's running. Ready for Hillary, again?"

Clinton Unites Democrats — Against Her  . . . "Hillary Clinton keeps flirting with running for president again, and the Democrat Party keeps rejecting her advances. You cannot blame Democrats for dismissing a candidacy the only rationale for which is hubris. And you cannot blame Republicans for desiring a candidacy that would take Democrats’ current chaos to another level.
"Welcome to the Clinton conundrum. On one hand, Hillary’s ominous omnipresence would signal an impending run if she were anyone else. On the other, Hillary’s two national election losses would signal a permanent retirement if she were anyone else.
"As they have been for almost three decades, Democrats are still trying to solve the Clinton riddle. Currently, they have their hands full with a fractured field that refuses to yield clarity. Four months in, and no closer to choosing next year’s nominee, the nominee from three years ago resurfaces." . . .

The View Leslie Jones Electoral College Real School

  (newsbusters.org)

ABC’s The View has never been a place for smart and informed discussions about politics. And that certainly wasn’t the case on Monday’s episode when Daily Show guest host and so-called “comedian” Leslie Jones openly admitted that before she joined Saturday Night Live in 2014, she seriously thought the Electoral College was a real place where politicians went to school. In 2014, Jones was 47 years old. Appearing on The View to promote her new book, the cast heaped obsequious praise on their guest. “And you don't shy away from politics. 

"ABC’s The View has never been a place for smart and informed discussions about politics. And that certainly wasn’t the case on Monday’s episode when Daily Show guest host and so-called “comedian” Leslie Jones openly admitted that before she joined Saturday Night Live in 2014, she seriously thought the Electoral College was a real place where politicians went to school. In 2014, Jones was 47 years old. 

 "Appearing on The View to promote her new book, the cast heaped obsequious praise on their guest. “And you don't shy away from politics. You follow politics closely and you’ll hit either side,” faux conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin boasted. “What made you want to work that more into your humor the past few years?

 "According to Jones, she wasn’t into politics before moving to New York and that New Yorkers were “really smart about politics and stuff” compared to Californians:

"Well, honestly, because I just learned about it. When I went to SNL – Okay. Before SNL, just New York, period, you guys are really smart about politics and stuff. Like y'all really are on that. Like California, we’re over there smoking weed, you know, swimming pools, sun tanning. We ain't really into it, right?

“So, when I got to SNL, there were so many things I listened about that I didn't even know. Like seriously, the Electorial [sic] College, I didn't know about that,” she recalled while mispronouncing it. She then admitted: “I did think it was a college-college. I thought, you know, people got to go there before they become a politician.” . . .

Donald Trump wins Electoral College - as attempts to cause rebellion turn to farce with DEMOCRATS deserting Hillary

UK Daily Mail  . . . "Calls for Trump to be voted down by members of the Electoral College were roundly ignored on Monday – with only two 'faithless' Republican electors rejecting the president-elect and four deserting Democrat Hillary Clinton.

"Several more electors tried to ditch the Democratic loser, in an effort to pressure Republicans into doing the same and selecting a more moderate GOP president.

"Trump applauded his victory when that scheme didn't work and flaunted it in front of the media. 

'Today marks a historic electoral landslide victory in our nation's democracy,' he said in a statement to reporters. 'I thank the American people for their overwhelming vote to elect me as their next President of the United States.' 

" 'The official votes cast by the Electoral College exceeded the 270 required to secure the presidency by a very large margin, far greater than ever anticipated by the media,' he added. 

Congress will certify the Electoral College vote on January 6 and Trump will be sworn in on January 20." . . .  

 Read More

The Electoral College Must Remain

Moreover, Cohen's proposal would likely be rejected by smaller states because it could invalidate the importance of their votes and dissuade people from voting.  It could also allow a small number of densely populated cities to determine the outcome of an election.

American Thinker  "Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., recently introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would eliminate the Electoral College.  This was obviously done in response to the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election despite winning nearly 3 million more votes than President Trump.  According to Cohen, the Electoral College is outdated and distorting.

"In a recent Fox News article, Cohen was quoted as saying, "Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office.  More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators.  It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President."

Cohen's position is clearly partisan, will almost certainly fail, and will face stiff resistance from many smaller states.

"According to HistoryCentral, "[t]he Electoral College was created for two reasons.  The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President.  The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states."  The first reason revolved around the possibility that a candidate could manipulate public opinion to such a great extent that it would lead him to secure the presidency.  In other words, the Founders did not believe that the citizens could make the right decision on their own.  Therefore, the electorate served as a system of checks and balances.  This does not appear to be as much of a concern today.

"The second reason, however, is still relevant.  Generally speaking, the number of electorates  in a given state directly correlates to the number of congressional representatives in the state.  The minimum number of electorates for a given state is three.  Therefore, the "value" of a vote in a smaller state with a lower population would "count" more than it would in a state with a higher population.  For example, if a state had 90,000 votes and had three electorates, each electorate would represent 30,000 votes.  On the other hand, a large state with 10,000,000 votes and 54 electorates would mean that each electorate would represent approximately 185,000 votes.  Therefore, this system was initially used to appease the smaller states.

"Moreover, Cohen's proposal would likely be rejected by smaller states because it could invalidate the importance of their votes and dissuade people from voting.  It could also allow a small number of densely populated cities to determine the outcome of an election." . . .  

Never entrust the heritage nor the governing of our nation to this crop of Democrats!

Attacks on the Electoral College Gain Momentum

NRO  "You won’t hear about it in the mainstream media, but the Electoral College is on the verge of being eliminated. One important legislative vote could occur Thursday. Two others could occur in the upcoming days and weeks."

Look at a night-time satellite photo of the US. If the Electoral College is eliminated, our presidents will be chosen by the brightly lit areas. Those in less-lit areas, such as Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, etc., will be castoffs and can forget about candidates giving them a second thought.  The Electoral College is a safeguard against a movement, faddish candidate that does not transcend the entire nation. This should have worked against someone like Obama, but I suggest he was a politically correct aberration. TD

Here's a List of Democrat Presidential Candidates Who Want to Abolish the Electoral College

Townhall

. . . "Other candidates haven't been directly asked about the issue, but when they are, this list will be updated."

Beto: 'I Think There’s a Lot of Wisdom' in Abolishing Electoral College   "Former Rep. [Robert Francis] O’Rourke believes abolishing the Electoral College is a wise idea—apparently knowing better than the founding fathers.

"Responding to a question posed by MSNBC correspondent Garrett Haake about getting rid of the Electoral College, O’Rourke said he “sees a lot of wisdom in that" idea. 
“ 'I think there’s a lot to that. Because you had an election in 2016 where the loser got 3 million more votes than the victor,” O’Rourke said. “It puts some states out of play altogether, they don’t feel like their votes really count.' " . . .

Electoral College Revolt Brewing? "A Republic. How does it work?"

"Democrats aren’t limiting tumult to their own side of the Electoral College. There’ve been numerous reports of Republican Electors receiving death threats from Hillary supporters:" . . .

Legal Insurrection  "As half the country learned two weeks ago, we do not select our president by popular vote, our president is selected by Electors in our Electoral College; a safeguard against pure democratic rule.

"As far as modern history is concerned, Elector’s votes are typically congruent with their respective state’s popular vote.

"Now, a handful of Democratic electors are threatening to vote their conscience:

. . . "One Michigan Elector, Michigan Young Republicans Chairman Mike Banerian, was forced to file a police report after his voice mail filled up with terrifying messages. “You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,’ ” Banerian told the Detroit News.

“ 'I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.' ” . . .

This map, which, fails to show all-red Alaska, tells us which portion of America would choose our President should the Electoral College be replaced by a popular vote:

Or, to put it another way, in the satellite photo below the very brightest clusters of lights will choose the President. Candidates will no longer care to campaign in other areas nor to be concerned with their issues.

January 6th; talk about a drop-dead date

 

Rich Terrell

Coming attractions for January 6  "Here are updates related to January 6, when a joint session of Congress will meet to vote on the Electoral College results.  (Depending on how things unfold, there may be some surprises.  Some could be quite shocking.  More on that further down.)

"On January 6, members of Trump's legal team hope to present their case of massive voter fraud to Congress and the American people.  I presume they've been sharing information with Congress for weeks now, but on the 6th, it will be official, and they will also have a platform to speak to the public — at least as far as I understand things.

"On that same day, dozens of speakers will be on stage before a massive crowd, challenging the election results, standing with President Trump, and standing for the Constitution.

"Inside the hallowed corrupt halls of Congress, twenty congressmen have pledged to challenge the Electoral College vote. " . . .

If enough senators challenge the election results, Trump wins 

. . . In brief: If senators follow Hawley's lead and take a stand against the fraudulently generated Electoral College votes, at that point, under the Twelfth Amendment, there is no elected president, and the matter returns not to the full House, but to a single representative from each state.  And so, Trump wins.

Hey, GOP: This is Your Do or Die Moment   Mr. Romney, you listening?

Sen. Josh Hawley to Join GOP House Members Who Will Contest Electoral College Results on Jan. 6  "January 6, the day Congress is expected to accept the results of the election, is fast approaching.

"There have been a lot of rumblings about what to do with so many Republicans questioning the results of the election. Polls indicate that at least 78% of Republicans do not believe that Joe Biden won legitimately and they want people to listen to the concerns being raised.

"Now, reports are that some in Congress will be objecting on January 6.

"Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) has been leading the charge in the House. Joining him will be several new incoming members including Reps. Barry Moore (R-AL), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), Burgess Owens (R-UT), Yvette Herrell (R-NM), Dr. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), Bob Good (R-VA), Jerry Carl (R-AL) and Andrew Clyde of Georgia. While there are at least 10 new members joining Brooks, there are also current members who will be joining as well, such as Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA)." . . .

NYT: Impeachment rightfully gives losers tyranny over winners

Bookworm Room

At the NYT, hard Leftist Michelle Goldberg explains that impeachment offsets the tyranny of the Electoral College, giving losers their rightful victory.

. . . "Before I get to the opinion piece, though, do I need to remind you that presidential elections in America are governed by the Electoral College? Since I know that my readers have a high level of intelligence and knowledge, I almost certainly don’t need to offer that reminder. Nevertheless, I think it’s easier to understand how horrific the NYT opinion piece is if you remind yourself about the constitutional background.
"If you want to read about it at the source, the Electoral College is right there in the Constitution, at Article II, Section 1, Clause. The whole point of the Electoral College is to ensure that America is not a direct democracy but is, in fact, a representative democracy, including representative votes for the president. The Founders deliberately put all sorts of layers between voters and their government.
"For starters, we don’t run the country on a giant town hall basis, which would be the most direct democracy of all, with every single action of the United States being put to all the voters. Instead, we elect representatives who carry out the will of the people who placed them in office." . . .

A Theology of the Electoral College

Just Thinking…for Myself  "Applying biblical truth to social, political, and theological issues in our world."

. . . "Please understand that in stating the aforementioned, I am in no way inferring or implying that the United States Constitution is a theological document in and of itself.

"I am not saying that at all.

"What I am saying, however, is that the protections that are inherent within it are clearly and unarguably rooted and grounded in the doctrine of the sinfulness of human beings.

"The Electoral College is but one example of this.

“Every soul has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ. The unregenerate soul is unclean and sinful both in condition and in action.” – R. Stanton Norman, from A Theology for the Church, edited by Daniel L. Akin, chapter 8, Human Sinfulness, p. 434

"Regardless if the Founders were deists, theists, agnostics, or even atheists, they clearly had an appreciation (if not an affinity) for the fact that human beings are innately sinful and, as such, are susceptible to the temptations and seductions that invariably accompany positions of power and influence.

"So, it is in that sense that I am most thankful to God for the wisdom bestowed upon the Founding Fathers in giving our nation both the Constitution and, conversely, the Electoral College, as safeguards that exist for the purpose of protecting us from ourselves."

“ 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” – Romans 3:23 (NASB)"

The Democrats’ Plan To Steal The Presidency For Good –

  Issues & Insights (issuesinsights.com)

"There’s an old joke, funny mostly because it’s so true: “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” If you’re not in the majority, you’re the sheep, and you are eaten."

Electoral College, 2024. Source: Chessrat, via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

"While Americans brace for another contentious presidential election, the Democrats have a better idea: Subvert the Constitution in the name of “democracy.” Once again, the party of the left shows why it’s losing Americans’ trust.

"Quietly but steadily, the Democratic Party has been advancing its latest bold idea to create a uni-party state: A “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.”

"In case you missed it, the Associated Press reported last week that “Maine will become the latest to join a multistate effort to elect the president by popular vote,” the 17th state to do so.

"As the AP noted, “Under the proposed compact, each state would allocate all its electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote for president, regardless of how individual states voted in an election.”

"The goal of this “movement” — it’s really a plot — is to get enough states to join to get to the magic number of 270 electoral votes, the amount needed to win the Electoral College. With Maine, the group now claims 209 electoral votes, a mere 61 away from their goal.

"What’s wrong with this picture? Nothing, except it’s an out-and-out attempt at subverting the protections placed in the Constitution to keep from having a national popularity contest for the presidency. This is what Democrats call “democracy.” In fact, it’s a recipe for mob rule.

"Our founders, who were extraordinarily wise and deeply steeped in both political history and philosophy, understood very well: Nations that start as law-respecting republics (America, in case you didn’t know, is a republic, a representative democracy, not a pure democracy) and employ “majority rules” quickly devolve into dictatorships.

"That was the whole reason for the Electoral College, which plays a vital role in determining our president by giving states a role in the election of a president. The media understand this, as a recent ABC News headline shows: “State law takes U.S. a step closer to popular vote deciding presidential elections”." . . .

Illegal immigrants could elect Hillary

"How noncitizens decrease Republican chances of winning the White House next year."

Politico

"Illegal immigrants—along with other noncitizens without the right to vote—may pick the 2016 presidential winner. Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats.

"The right to vote is intended to be a singular privilege of citizenship. But the 1787 Constitutional Convention rejected allowing the people to directly elect their President. The delegates chose instead our Electoral College system, under which 538 electoral votes distributed amongst the states determine the presidential victor. The Electoral College awards one elector for each U.S. Senator, thus 100 of the total, and D.C. gets three electors pursuant to the 23^rd Amendment. Those electoral numbers are unaffected by the size of the noncitizen population. The same cannot be said for the remaining 435, more than 80 percent of the total, which represent the members elected to the House. " . . .

"The distribution of these 435 seats is not static: they are reapportioned every ten years to reflect the population changes found in the census. That reallocation math is based on the relative “whole number of persons in each state,” as the formulation in the 14^th Amendment has it. When this language was inserted into the U.S. Constitution, the concept of an “illegal immigrant,” as the term is defined today, had no meaning. Thus the census counts illegal immigrants and other noncitizens equally with citizens. " . . .

Elizabeth Warren's call to abolish the Electoral College is part of a pernicious pattern

Monica Showalter  "Unlike, say, Beto O'Rourke, who offers nothing upstairs, or Kamala Harris, who flits with the wind with regard to what she's in favor of, Elizabeth Warren is a Democratic presidential candidate with some specific ideas.

"And they're not good ones. 

"Here's what's probably her worst, from Twitter:

Elizabeth Warren

✔ @ewarren

Every vote matters. We need to get rid of the Electoral College so that presidential candidates have to ask every American in every part of the country for their vote, not just those in battleground states. #WarrenTownHall

"It's a programmatic call from the worst of the Democratic electoral operatives' dream book: to wipe out the constitution and replace it with riggings for Democrats.  With Warren, it's now coming into the mainstream as a respectable idea.

"It's also awful, an idea clothed in the California-style slogan of "count all the votes," which is the rationale used for the open practice of ballot-harvesting there.  "Count all the votes."  "Every vote matters..."

"What it is is a bid to second-guess and smash up the wisdom of the founding fathers for the sole reason that Democrats don't like losing.  Call it the Democrat Pacifier for Permanent Power Act of 2020."

Save the Electoral College

The Republican electors find that Hate Trumps Love (Updated)

"He said he’s been getting death threats via email, snail mail, Twitter and Facebook.
“ 'Somebody threatened to put a bullet in the back of my mouth,” Banerian, 22, told The Post on Wednesday."

Electors are being harassed, threatened in bid to stop Trump  

"Electors around the country are being harassed with a barrage of emails, phone calls and letters — and even death threats — in an effort to block Donald Trump from being voted in as president by the Electoral College on Monday.

"The bullying is overwhelming Sharon Geise’s tech devices, but not her resolve to support Trump.

"The Mesa, Arizona, grandmother woke up Wednesday morning to more than 1,500 emails demanding she not carry out her legal duty to vote for the president-elect." . . .

Prof. Lawrence Lessig: Our attempt to steal the election is going well  "In Colorado, a judge ruled against Clinton electors who claimed a right to vote against how state law required them to vote. So Lessig’s theory, advanced by many people, that electors can vote however they want even in states where they are bound, has so far not found any judicial authority."

. . . "The “Hamilton Electors” movement, or whatever other name you want to give to Operation Flip the Electors, is nothing short of an attempt to rewrite the election rules after the fact. Like saying after a football game that the team with the most yardage should win even though it didn’t score the most points." . . .

Supposedly tolerant NYC is making the Trump kids’ lives ‘horrible’

. . . "Protesters in the city may chant, “Love trumps hate,” but that’s not stopping some from piling on Donald Trump’s family." . . .

Pa. releases Trump electors' contact info, GOP slams "unprecedented harassment"  "Republican Party officials say they believe the Pennsylvania Department of State willfully disregarded open records protections when it released the contact information of President-elect Donald Trump's electors, opening them up to harassment"

"These electors were never on the ballot, nor were they ever candidates," Sweeney said. "Nevertheless, Governor Tom Wolf's Department of State chose to break with precedent and release the phone numbers and home addresses of Pennsylvania's twenty electors."

The Myth of Hillary’s Popular Vote 'Victory'  "Many modern liberals are fascists at heart who can’t accept losing power; that’s why Bush wasn’t “their” president.

"Those liberals are currently bemoaning the fact that Hillary won the popular vote which, according to them, means she should really be president, though were the case reversed we all know they’d be extolling the virtues of the Electoral College.

"Driven by a lust for power liberals don’t get that everyone has to follow the rules; demanding the rules change when you lose so that you can win" . . . 

Celebrities urge electors to flip. Well, that's good enough for me.

Even the Washington Post said, Griping about the popular vote? Get over it.  . . . "Aiming for 270 electoral votes out of 538, both Clinton and Trump focused on 13 swing states; Trump won that contest-within-a-contest by 816,000 votes." . . .

Hat tip to Lucianne for much of the above research.

Update: Electoral college voters will NOT rebel against Trump they say - as they tell of desperate appeals from 'idiots' to oppose president-elect on Monday  . . . "Associated Press interviews with more than 330 electors from both parties found little appetite for a revolt.

"Whether they like Trump or not, and some plainly don't, scores of the Republicans chosen to cast votes in the state-capital meetings told AP they feel bound by history, duty, party loyalty or the law to rubber-stamp their state's results and make him president. 

"Appeals numbering in the tens of thousands - drowning inboxes, ringing cellphones, stuffing home and office mailboxes with actual handwritten letters - have not swayed them." . . .