|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Senators from small states that no one would otherwise care about calling for eliminating the Electoral College are disempowering the people who elected them and putting their party ahead of their states.
Vermont has a population of 647,000. Hawaii has a population of 1.4 million. Hawaii has two House members. Vermont has one.
But here are Sen. Brian Schatz from Hawaii and Sen. Peter Welch from Vermont have proposed a constitutional amendment (that is going nowhere) pushing for the abolition of the Electoral College.
Because they really want to make their states even more irrelevant than they are now.
But here’s a little thought experiment. Schatz and Welch want only the popular vote to elect presidents, but they’d like states, even small ones, to still retain two senators. No matter how small they are. They want state-based representation where it favors them and a purely national system where it doesn’t.
“In an election, the person who gets the most votes should win. It’s that simple,” Schatz said. “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 The Electoral College is outdated and it’s undemocratic.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.”
Except that the votes of the 647,000 Hawaiians already count for as much as the 38 million Californians when it comes to Senate representation. Shouldn’t Schatz also be clamoring for proportional Senate representation so that “no one’s vote should count for more based on where they live”?
(Some liberals have proposed this. None of them have been senators from small states.)
Such a proposition would take one senate seat from both Hawaii and Vermont. Somehow I don’t think Schatz and Welch are going to line up to give up their own seats. Because they put party over state, but they also put state over party.
Time to Vote Out All the Democrats one and for all they want total Power and Control of our lives they want to be Emperors or Dictators and replace the U.S. Constitution with various UN Treaties
The US Constitution was only possible because the separate states made agreements limiting power, including that of large states. Limited power is not outdated, it is thematic. It is not democratic for the electorate in a state to have its electoral votes decided by voters in other states. The collectivist Democrats likely have the aim of eliminating states from the Constitution and having a unitary government. That would end their Gerrymandering, but if they achieved total power, that would be superfluous.
Good points. Lefties are all hypocritical liars.
Thanks Jeff! The basic Dem strategy (as you know already 🙂 is to control the big cities, and cram them full, with criminals and corruption, so the Dems have lots of votes and can more easily commit vote fraud there. So a handful of large Dem cities would control the whole nation, without the Electoral College.
Imagine only 647,000 people live in Vermont and their votes count as much as 30 t0 50 MILLION votes in other States for the Senate! This shows the awesome intelligence of Our Founding Fathers! To have the foresight to make sure that the large states cannot control Our Nation! Brilliant! Oh, but the DEMOcrat pushing for the Popular Vote thingy doesn’t want to mess with the SENATE – typical HYPOCRITE! And that’s what the DEMOcrat party should be called – The HYPOCRITE Party!
And their calls for “gun control”! We should do this! Seriously!! Data shows that the left commits the vast majority of violence so let’s just CONTROL GUNS and not ALLOW the LEFT to have guns! And don’t think for a minute that their “gun control” would prevent their base from having guns while the R’s are forbidden!
That’s why states were supposed to choose their senators, not a popular vote. These senators clearly aren’t representing their states’ interests in the federal government.
Such incredible ignorance. I’m embarrassed to find we have elected officials who seem clueless to the history of their own govt. These pinheads are apparently unaware that our American Founders nixed the idea of the popular vote 250 years ago. And with sound reason. They called it the “tyranny of the majority.” Or as the old adage says, “Democracy is two wolves and a chicken discussing what’s for dinner.” Their illiterate drivel is a threat to the very democracy they supposedly endorse.
“Brian Schatz?” “Shatz?
Is that a real name or what he does in his living room when his cats aren’t looking? And I thought my last name was bad. “Buttholz.”