Ban Electoral College? Think Again!

That upstart New York politician, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez needs to understand politics a little bit better before she gets to DC next year. Ocasio-Cortez beat long-time New York Representative Joesph Crowley in the Democrat primary, and is pretty much a shoo-in to win the congressional seat next month.

But the problem isn’t that she’s going to DC. It’s that she’s woefully ignorant when it comes to the ways of our country. Here’s a for instance (and Hillary…you may want to listen to this too!). Ocasio-Cortez, and Clinton have both called for the abolishment of the Electoral College because it sometimes (five times to be exact) allows the popular vote winner to actually lose the election. On the surface it only sounds fair. However, if you delve a little deeper into the why, you’ll understand it a little better.

Our Founding Fathers were actually pretty smart. They realized way back in the 1780’s that there would be states with greater populations than others, and that if they elected the president by virtue of the popular vote alone, it would basically shut out smaller states from having any say. By giving each state the equivalent number of votes as they have Representatives and Senators in Washington, it closes the gap. That means that states like North Dakota, or Utah, have just as much chance to be the “swing state” as California or New York or Texas. Otherwise, politicians would spend their time in a dozen cities or less, and would forget about the rest of the country (like Hillary apparently did).

By having the Electoral College in place, we are insuring that politicians represent ALL of the people, not just those on the three coasts. So, the midwest, which by popular vote standards wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans, does end up getting some attention… not just Iowa with their first in the nation political circus known as the caucuses. And no one would ever venture farther north than New York City in the east. New Hampshire, even with it’s first in the nation primary, wouldn’t get any press. And to think we’d be denied seeing the first in the nation voting in Dixville Notch!? That in and of itself is un-American!

Even if Ocasio-Cortez and Clinton were serious in their belief, it would be an impossible feat. In order for that to happen, both houses of Congress, by a two-thirds super-majority would have to agree. Then it goes to the states, where each state legislature debates the proposed constitutional amendment, and votes. A total of 38 states (three-fourths) need to ratify the proposed amendment for it to become an amendment to the Constitution. Congress traditionally sets a time limit for the states to vote one way or the other on the proposed amendment.

There is another way…if three-fourths of the states (again, 38) decide to hold a “Constitutional Convention”, they can propose it, along with any other changes to the Constitution that way. If they do pass it, with 38 states agreeing, it becomes the law of the land. But, there is a reason this method has never been tried. Let’s say the left is successful for calling for a Constitutional Convention (or a Constitution of States), and proposes abolishment of the Electoral College. IF they get 38 states to go along with them (highly unlikely), then it’s gone. But the caveat here is that say some conservative group decides to propose their own constitutional amendment that abortion be illegal. Again, if 38 states agree, it’s law. And the left has to go home thinking that they somehow got screwed because of the process.

That in a nutshell is why the Electoral College will never be abolished, especially in the current political atmosphere. It’s just too damn divided. Neither side will ever get the requiste numbers either in the states, or in Congress to get it passed. So, let the left scream and shout…they are just trying to relieve some tension after such a humiliating defeat as losing the Supreme Court for the next generation.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!


12 thoughts on “Ban Electoral College? Think Again!

  1. Thank God for electoral college so that merely two dozen mega cities/counties cannot elect a president. These cities are sanctuary cities and in defiance of federal law and declaring law (Constitution) null and void which is treason and insurrection. They should have their leaders arrested. These are not the kind of people to be even voting if they continue their defiance. South Carolina was going to pass nullification and then President Andrew Jackson promised them he’d would come down there with some of his men and hang every one of them. Sounds good to me.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Now you’re talk’n! Article V, Convention of States. The only problem I see is that Congress hasn’t taken it seriously. Just because it has never been done before, they assume that it never will, therefore, they have never established or set the proper procedures needed to govern such a convention. Congress also doesn’t like the idea that they, Congress, have nothing to do with controlling a convention. The only two tasks that Congress is responsible for, is for is the actual calling of the convention (i.e. Shall), and setting the method of ratification of any amendments.

    Article V

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

    Back in 1971, by virtue of a suggestion by the Council of Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, the American Bar Association took on the task of evaluating the ramifications of the constitutional convention method of initiating amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Upon completion of a two year study the ABA published its conclusions. Further, the 1st Session of the 93rd Congress March 19, 1973 passed Senate Bill S.1272 to provide procedures for calling constitutional conventions for proposing amendments to the Constitution and referred it to the Committee on the Judiciary but no further action has been taken.

    Thru the years there have been many favorable references to an Article V convention. In his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” Justice Joseph Story wrote “ that a government that provides no means of change, but assumes to be fixed and unalterable, must, after a while, become wholly unsuited to the circumstances of the nation; and it will either degenerate into despotism, or by the pressure of its inequalities bring on a revolution….The great principle to be sought is to make the changes practicable, but not too easy; to secure due deliberation, and caution; and to follow experience, rather than to open a way for experiments, suggested by mere speculation or theory”.

    Hamilton spoke enthusiastically about the convention method in Federalist 85 as did Madison in Federalist 43. Even George Washington, in his Farewell Address, referred to its wisdom by stating, “…The basis of our political Systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all…”

    Currently, there are 12 States who’s legislative bodies have already approved a Convention of States convention. And although I’m very much in favor of an Article V Convention, I have yet to understand what amendments the group wishes to propose!?!?. It’s my understanding that when two-thirds of states request a convention to propose an amendment, all 34 states are required to be asking for the same thing (i.e. term limits, balanced budget). Article V makes it very clear that the option is only for “proposing” amendments. It’s not to be used to simply open-up the entire Constitution to revision! If someone could enlighten me as to the specific amendment(s) the Convention of States Organization is proposing, it would be greatly appreciated.

    For GOD and Country!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. About four or five years ago, I was involved with COS (Convention Of States) and the drive to get it passed in Arizona. That’s how I met Rick Gray for the first time. He was the Majority Whip in the House, and was texting me as the House voted on the passage of a COS. Andy Bigg, however, who was President of the Senate at the time, wouldn’t bring the measure to the Senate floor, so it died in this state. It was a very educational and interesting process. That’s also I think when I got to know Debbie Lesko pretty well!


      1. YES! Actually AZ DID pass it eventually. I was working on it back in 2013 when the movement was starting up…it took till last March (2017) before it passed, but it DID indeed pass. Sorry to have left that out.


      2. Not a problem, but what are they asking for? Are there specific amendments or do they simply want to open up a convention with unspecified and different wants from each State?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. They were basically wanting term limits initially, but ANYTHING can be brought up at a COS, which is why it had such a hard time passing. You open that up, get 38 states to go along with it, and you could basically remove the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court couldn’t do anything about it, because it’s constitutional.


  3. I was considering volunteering but first want to know what amendments they wanted to propose. I couldn’t find any local coordinators email address’ to ask that question because it seems the only way to contact them is thru twitter, instgram, facebook and others. None of which am I a subscriber.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Well Cactus, there is a lot of red meat here to comment about.

    First Carl, it is obvious you are ignorant of the Constitution, Federal law and cities. Sanctuary cities or any body politic for that matter, has no obligation to enforce immigration laws. Read your Constitution again and then tell me where anyone below the Federal Government is required to enforce immigration law. So nobody is going to arrest anybody over this. Also, thank goodness that thug Sheriff Joe has been sent to the dust bin of Fountain Hills.

    Andrew Jackson was a two term loser who basically defied the Supreme Court of the United States because he hated Native Americans. He seriously set the tone for our continuing appalling policies that continue today toward Native Americans. Does the Trail of Tears strike a familiar note? As Cactus knows, I get really pissed off at people who do not know the history of our great country, just snippets that make them look like Very Serious People. So Carl, go learn something for a change and turn off those morons on Fox.

    To Tom and yourself, you are being seriously played on COS thing. What is the real purpose, or as I learned in underwriting, what is the need behind the need? Who profits from the change and if you think it is this individual liberty thing, you better get your head out of whatever office it is stuck in. You familiar with the Liberty Amendments by that Fox News sh*thead Mark Levin? This is the corner stone of this COS thing. As for Rick Gray, he is bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers. Let us see, American Legislative Exchange Council, Americans For Prosperity, Club For Growth, Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Federalist Societyand so on. The problem with a con is you do not realize that you have been conned until it is too late. Think that tax cut and that $1,000 you are supposed to get, con job and somebody has to pay for it and it is not the Sheldon Adelson.

    I know I will not change your closed minds, but I do want you to think about what I said and maybe do some research. Facts are not biased and there is no such thing as alternative facts.

    Have a positive day and have fun storming the castle.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s