Why do Democrats want to dump the Electoral College?

It is nice to see that a Democrat is calling out the extremists in his own party that want to circumvent the Constitution. I know that even Democrats will generally be against what is being proposed here, but there will also be others that will support this trashing of the Constitution simply to create a short term political gain at the cost of our countries soul.

The plan by Michael Moore and his cronies is to use an "Interstate Compact" to ignore the will of the voters in individual states and instead award all their delegates to the popular vote. This plan would have handed the election to Hillary by ignoring the will of the constituents of their state and instead forcing heir delegates to vote for the candidate that won the most votes nationally.

I am sure most of are saying there is no way anyone would go along with this scheme. It is completely wrong and disenfranchises voters from their own states, however, there are already 11 states that have agreed to this plan. This might actually happen.

We are now living in a twilight zone where one of the political parties is willing to use or Constitution like so much toilet paper for their own political gains.

I never thought we would see this day in America.

...Moore recently argued, Trump will probably win reelection if we keep the Electoral College (which he won 304-227 in 2016). If, however, the country were to replace it with a national popular vote, a Democrat would stand a much better chance of victory. Indeed, Hillary Clinton beat Trump by nearly three million total votes in 2016.

In normal times, dumping the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment. However, the far left is advocating for what it calls an “elegant” runaround – officially labeled the Interstate Compact – where states pool their electors for whichever candidate wins the national vote irrespective of their state’s vote. Let’s take an example.

Had the compact been in place in 2016, electors in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would have been forced to vote for Clinton even though Trump won their home states. Why? Clinton won more total national votes.

As of this writing, 11 states and their legislatures have signed on to the Interstate Compact. If the effort attracts a few more states that represent 105 Electoral College votes, the scheme goes into effect.

The author goes on...

It’s clear, though, that extremists in the Democratic Party aren’t keen on doing things right. Why? They know that passing constitutional reforms is tough. Indeed, amendments almost always fail.

For them, that means there’s only one solution: cheating. They’re willing to treat the constitution like a downed tree to be cleared in order to secure the White House in 2020.

But if that’s what it takes to win, this Democrat would rather lose.

Source

Aren't the electors governed by the parties and not election laws??

I would have to do some internet sleuthing to back this up but it seems that either side has called the electoral college into question whenever their guy didn't win.

It seems like political parties love the electoral college when their guy wins and hate it when they don't.

It's all about power consolidation.

The only way to get there is with mob rule.

Why did Trump, when Obama won?

And possibly up to the moment he won, because let's be honest if Hillary had won the electoral college vote...
He would cry "rigged"...

But I won't deflect. Ignore that.

Why don't you, in your own intelligent way, explain why less votes should mean more?

What's the point in voting if it is not one vote one count?

Then there is the gerrymandering?
What about that?

Are you suggesting the voting system is flawless?

a reply to: Metallicus

Oh, my goodness. Those nasty, nasty Democrats.
Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

Oh, my goodness. Those nasty, nasty Democrats.
Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

Good you did the sleuthing for me.

a reply to: Metallicus

It's funny.

Any party that wants to throw away the Constitution has to actually use the Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution to destroy it.

a reply to: SolAquarius

You're welcome. It took me several hours.

The electoral college is the only fair way of representing the people of this country as a whole. If Clinton and company played by the rules she still wouldn't be president.
a reply to: Metallicus

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SolAquarius

You're welcome. It took me several hours.

No it didn't.
You knew the response🙄

The whole point of having a lower house and upper house was to make sure that those farming states with low population density and large amounts of agricultural land wouldn't be outvoted by those coastal states with high population densities and little farmland.

The lower house is elected by the popular vote, while the upper house are those who are wealthy or have been successful in their field of work. So there is already a popular vote factored in.

There needs to be some safeguards to prevent the masses voting themselves the wealth of the rich, but it's way too far when workers at Walmart have to depend on foodstamps while the corporation makes billions.

Republicans wanted to DUMP the electoral collage TOO when Obama won...

*YAWN*

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

Oh, my goodness. Those nasty, nasty Democrats.
Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

I'm a big proponent of the Nebraska/Maine method as it combines the best of both worlds into a reasonable compromise. It is neither 'winner take all' nor is it popular vote.

It would really only work if all states did it, and we would never see Democrat strongholds like California give up the 55 EC lock.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SolAquarius

You're welcome. It took me several hours.

Good work! There is no doubt for political purposes these people would kill so why not attempt to rewrite the rules to suit them?

Why do both Democrats and Republicans worship Mammon?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

Oh, my goodness. Those nasty, nasty Democrats.
Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

I'm a big proponent of the Nebraska/Maine method as it combines the best of both worlds into a reasonable compromise. It is neither 'winner take all' nor is it popular vote.

It would really only work if all states did it, and we would never see Democrat strongholds like California give up the 55 EC lock.

I agree with you,and I would add there should be no party affiliation for POTUS and we should have two rounds of elections to do it right. But no primary's. Go with the primary style of voting so the candidates can stump in the same states at the same time. Second round have 4 or 5 runoff based on some minimum % votes received round 1. I like the idea on splitting the vote and think all states should too as that helps independents have a roll in the discussion of the direction the country is heading.

Then allow the PAC money to help them. We would be able to follow who is paying these BOZO's (off for favors?). If we can see who is paying them it can help us decide who they are better. We need the true direction of the people's wishes instead of the contrived like an afternoon soap opera crap we have now.

originally posted by: eisegesis
Why do both Democrats and Republicans worship Mammon?

As an old friend of mine always said, "because money talks and bull s*** walks"! They are greedy and selfish will be at the root of it.

originally posted by: eisegesis
Why do both Democrats and Republicans worship Mammon?

Because Marduck worship doesn't have as many benefits?

Seems Like they both like to spill some blood on the alter of Aries every once in awhile as well.

So that their liberal bubbles can determine who runs the country.