Don’t demonize the electoral college — or the framers — as racist

The electoral college is a device that balances nationalism with states’ rights and leavens democracy’s passions with deliberation and reason.

LA Times

. . . "If the American people wanted a direct election for president, they could force their states to divide their electors in proportion to the Republican and Democrat tallies, or even assign their electors to align their votes with the nationwide result. The more states that shifted from winner-takes-all, the more the electoral count would match the national popular vote. But instead, the indirect system, as the republic’s framers conceived it, has endured.

"The framers originally deliberated between selecting the president in Congress or by nationwide vote. As it turned out, the delegates to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention overwhelmingly opposed popular national elections because of the size of the new nation and its relatively poor communications. They feared two types of candidates would come too easily to the fore: “local sons” from the voters’ own state, or “pretended patriots” and “active & designing men” — demagogues who would rule through a tyranny of the majority (a la Nicolas Maduro, in Venezuela). The framers also rejected having Congress select the chief executive, as European parliamentary systems do today, because it would make the latter too dependent upon the former.

"The electoral college was proposed to be representative but also mitigate popular passions, and to prevent giving Congress too strong a hand in presidential selection. In most cases, the winning candidate has had to assemble a geographically broad, and usually ideologically moderate coalition throughout the country.

"Today’s “woke” critique, however, focuses on racism. According to some scholars and commentators, the electoral college purposefully protected slavery by allocating electors based on the number of senators (thereby giving states more voice) and representatives (the Constitution infamously allowed slaves, who could not vote, to count as three-fifths of a person, thus inflating the voting power of slave states). During the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison acknowledged that the electoral college provided a necessary compromise between free states and slave-holding states, where the popular vote was diminished because slaves couldn’t vote. But that was the only time a framer actually connected slavery and the electoral college.

"The racism critique ignores the nuances of history. When one looks closer, as Princeton historian Sean Wilentz has pointed out in disavowing his own earlier thinking, the racism charge related to the electoral college “begins to unravel.' ” . . .

Being the LA Times, one can hope ignorant leftist celebrities might possibly be enlightened. TD

How Small States Lose When They Abandon the Electoral College

Intellectual Takeout

"The question then is this: Will there ever be a coalition of 270 so that America loses the electoral college? And what happens to the American republic if that does come to pass?"

Change our Constitution and upend our electoral process for this woman?

"Calls for the abolition of the Electoral College have persisted in the three years since President Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election without winning the popular vote.

"But abolishing the Electoral College in the normal way – via amending the Constitution – is a bit more arduous than proponents like. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called amending the Constitution to change or eliminate the Electoral College “more theoretical than real” according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

“ 'It’s largely a dream because the Constitution is… hard to amend,” Ginsburg said. “I know that from the experience.”

"Since it is hard to amend the Constitution, some states are trying to circumvent the process by pushing for popular vote presidential elections.

"Since Trump’s election, five states have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC.) States who participate in this pledge agree to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, but only if the participating states account for an absolute majority of electoral votes.

"The shocking thing is not the fact that this compact exists – it was founded in 2006 – but that so many small states have joined. The Electoral College is meant to ensure that states with small populations are able to have some say in who is president and what the president focuses on. The issues affecting these states stay in play precisely because candidates do need to worry about how these smaller states vote. It is curious then to see small states disregard this safeguard placed in the Constitution.

"One might expect larger states like California and New York to work toward a national popular vote, for doing so would allow presidential candidates to focus on them more. It only takes 11 heavily populated states to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency after all." . . .

Effort to Abandon Electoral College Gains Steam. Here’s What It Would Ruin for America.

Listed as reason #7,387 by Hillary for her loss to Donald Trump  (President Trump, that is)TD

Intellectual Takeout

. . . "While the Constitution, intentionally, gives wide latitude to states to create their own electoral systems, the law passed in Colorado, along with the rest of this effort, would be unprecedented. It would be the first time states potentially outsource their Electoral College votes to the will of the nation as a whole, rather than having elections determined by their own voters. The result of this, ironically, could be very undemocratic.

"For instance, if the people of Colorado vote overwhelmingly for a Democrat, yet the total popular vote of the nation goes Republican, all of the state’s votes would go to the Republican, essentially overturning the will of the people in Colorado.

"The Electoral College is already fairly democratic. Nearly every state switched to direct, democratic elections of electoral votes in the early 19th century, as opposed to selection by state legislatures. What the national popular vote would do is overturn the concept of federalism, which recognizes that states have unique interests that deserve representation in the electoral system. We are not just a nation of individuals, but a nation of communities and states.

"Some have dismissed the Electoral College system as outmoded and unjust. But they are mistaken—the Electoral College system remains highly relevant and necessary today. The 2016 election actually demonstrated that." . . .

"In 2016, states that had gone Democratic in presidential politics for a generation flipped to Republican, in large part because of a unique candidate who appealed to their interests. While one candidate capitalized on their support, the other took them for granted and focused elsewhere. The result was a startling upset that demonstrates why the Framers wanted an Electoral College." . . .

Keep in mind that many who want the Constitution changed are those who choose the current crop of Democrats such as AO-C, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Mazie (Men-shut-up!) Hirono, and Kamala Harris. TD

Four Question for Those Who Oppose the Electoral College; What the Electoral College Saves Us From

R. E. Bowse  "Have you heard?  The Electoral College is bad.  Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and others support its abolition.  On March 28, Delaware became the thirteenth state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) in which members agree to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.  The compact goes into effect only when the combined number of electoral votes of member states reaches 270, assuring their candidate victory. Legislation affixing New Mexico to the NPVIC sits on the desk of Governor Michelle Grisham (D). She's expected to sign it, giving the coalition 189 votes."
"The debate surrounding this issue is another example of proponents avoiding the salient points.  I pose the following four questions to those would undo the electoral college system, with the goal of promoting clarity and focusing on the nub of the matter."

1. If you support the direct democracy of a popular vote system, do you also reject republicanism as our form of government? . . .
2. If you reject the notion of disproportional representation, do you reject the institution of the U.S. Senate? . . .
3. Parity between the states was key to ratification.  Does parity not matter anymore? . . .
4. Is a popular vote system a cure for the disease? . . .

What the Electoral College Saves Us From;  "The winner of a national office should have nationwide support" . . .

. . . As with all such enthusiasms — expanding the Supreme Court, abolishing the filibuster and the Senate itself, lowering the voting age to 16, letting convicted felons and illegal aliens vote, adding D.C. and Puerto Rico as states, automatic voter registration, abolishing voter ID, etc. — the scarcely concealed argument is that changing the rules will help Democrats and progressives win more.

. . . "Picture a two-candidate election with 2016’s turnout. The Republican wins 54 percent of the vote in 48 states, losing only California, New York, and D.C. That’s a landslide victory, right? But then imagine that the Republican nominee who managed this feat was so unpopular in California, New York, and D.C. that he or she loses all three by a 75 percent–to–25 percent margin. That 451–87 landslide in the Electoral College, built on eight-point wins in 48 states, would also be a popular-vote defeat, with 50.7 percent of the vote for the Democrat to 49.3 percent for the Republican. Out of a total of about 137 million votes, that’s a popular-vote margin of victory of 1.95 million votes for a candidate who was decisively rejected in 48 of the 50 states." . . .

Constitutional amendment introduced to abolish the Electoral College

WCTV

Hat tip: Dallice Hand

"A campaign to get rid of the Electoral College is picking up steam. Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, along with fellow Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein and Kirsten Gillibrand, introduced a constitutional amendment Tuesday to abolish the Electoral College.

" 'In an election, the person who gets the most votes should win. It's that simple," Schatz said in a statement. "No one's vote should count for more based on where they live. The Electoral College is outdated and it's undemocratic. It's time to end it."

"Other top Democrats, including presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg, have also said the Electoral College should be scrapped. The concept has gained in popularity after both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton lost their respective presidential elections despite winning the popular vote.

"Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said it could happen again in the future.

" 'It's likely that if anything, the incidents of the popular vote being disregarded by the Electoral College will be increasing during the 21st century. Why? Because of the concentration of Democratic votes in a smaller number of states," Sabato told CBSN. "They may be big states like New York and California. But when you put all the electoral votes together, Democrats will have more trouble reaching 270 [electoral votes] than they will winning the popular vote.' " . . .

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)." . . .