Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 18, 2018

Here is my take. They know full well that they aren't going to overturn the election. These privately funded forces are being used to create pressure to destroy the Electoral College so they won't have to deal with it next election. This is how the left operates. Make a big deal over here to force the hidden agenda over there. The plan is to make enough trouble that Congress will move to abolish the EC to get some peace.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

You really need to stop reading these junk sites.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 09:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hell yeah, eliminate the Electoral College. One man, one vote. If you disagree with that please explain why your vote should be more important than mine. EC was set up to protect slavery, the slave states would not ratify the Constitution without it. It is an undemocratic anachronism that needs to end.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-18 09:26 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

One man one vote would also require the repeal of the 19th Amendment. Sounds good to me.

#3 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-10-18 10:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

One man, one vote. - #2 | Posted by Danni at 2018-10-18 09:26 AM

One person in my states vote = any other person in my state's vote. How my state determines its EC votes is determined by those votes.
Just like yours.

#4 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-10-18 10:17 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

One person in my states vote = any other person in my state's vote. How my state determines its EC votes is determined by those votes.
Just like yours.

#4 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Except winner takes all means the loser's vote means nothing.

At the very least the EC should be modified so that delegates are divided proportionally to the state's vote tally.

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 10:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

At the very least the EC should be modified so that delegates are divided proportionally to the state's vote tally.- #5 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 10:27 AM
Each state, being responsible for their distribution of delegates is certainly able to make that decision for themselves. Some have already chosen to make non-winner-takes-all distribution decisions (Maine and Nebraska).

#6 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-10-18 10:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

One man, one vote. If you disagree with that please explain why your vote should be more important than mine.

Because we arent one whole country like you envision. We are a federation of States, who have their own autonomy.

You need to tell me why California and NY need to set the pace for other states that have different needs and worldview.

#7 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-18 10:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"You need to tell me why California and NY need to set the pace for other states that have different needs and worldview."

They pay a sizable percentage of the bills.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 11:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I just posted a thread along these lines.

In short, here is the progressive mantra: If the outcome doesn't go in favor of progressives, change the rules. If the new rules don't produce an outcome favorable to progressives, change them again.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 11:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You need to tell me why California and NY need to set the pace for other states that have different needs and worldview."

They pay a sizable percentage of the bills."

By that logic rich people should get more votes. The richer you are, the more votes you get.

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-18 11:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Had Hillary won, this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

Remember when she was outraged that Trump might not accept the results?

Supposedly, way back then, that was un-American and a danger to democracy.

A mere two years later, it's being justified and openly challenged. #butthurt

#11 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-18 11:26 AM | Reply

The EC had two reasons to exist; 1) Convince slave states to join the union 2) Protect the Union from popular candidates unfit to serve.

---- slavery, so reason 1 is not a good reason to keep it, and they failed to act in 2016 when reason 2 was put to the test.

The EC goes against everything these United States stand for.

#12 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-18 01:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#10 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

There has never been a weaker argument than "the populous states shouldn't get to decide what happens to less populous states, so the less populous states should be allowed to control the populous ones."

#13 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-18 01:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"A large part of Americans' miseducation is the often heard claim that we are a democracy. The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the two most fundamental documents of our nation -- the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, our Constitution -- in Article 4, Section 4 -- guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." The Founding Fathers had utter contempt for democracy. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, said that in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Virginia Gov. Edmund Randolph said that "in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams wrote: "Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide." At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton said: "We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty" is found not in "the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments. ... If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy."

townhall.com

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-18 01:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

so the less populous states should be allowed to control the populous ones."

The less populous states could give a ---- about what's happening in NY and CA. They wouldnt bother any of you. But those populos states are always coming here with their "good ideas" and trying to make the entire country like them.

Thank God for the electoral college.

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-18 01:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"The less populous states could give a ---- about what's happening in NY and CA."

Get real.

You are deeply morally offended by the Santa Barbara plastic straw ban.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-18 01:55 PM | Reply

But those populos states are always coming here with their "good ideas" and trying to make the entire country like them.
#15 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Electricity, indoor plumbing

#17 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2018-10-18 01:57 PM | Reply

The less populous states could give a ---- about what's happening in NY and CA. They wouldnt bother any of you. But those populos states are always coming here with their "good ideas" and trying to make the entire country like them.

#15 | POSTED BY BOAZ

--------. Why the ---- do they try to regulate what we do, then? You inbreds are always claiming to be pro-states' rights unless those states are California and NY.

#18 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-18 02:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#14 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I already addressed that and the EC (our failsafe against to potential monarchy due to an unfit elected official) proved it is not willing to step in when needed. Just because we aren't a strict democracy does not mean we should eschew the democratic principles the nation was founded upon and let an isolated minority of rural idiots hijack all control from the productive majority.

#19 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-18 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In short, here is the majority mantra: If the outcome doesn't go in favor of the majority, change the rules. If the new rules don't produce an outcome favorable to the majority, change them again.

#9 | POSTED BY JEFFYLUBE

FTFY.

#20 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-18 02:03 PM | Reply

The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the two most fundamental documents of our nation...
And, yet, the right of individuals to vote is mentioned at least 5 times in the US Constitution.

If the USA is not a democracy, then why does the Constitution bother protecting the individual's right to vote?

They must not teach that at CNU*

*CNU - CliffNotes University

BTW, from local dog catcher to governors, state legislators, Congresscritters and US Senators are all elected through democratic elections, with the popular vote winner elected.

Only the president/vice president are not.

It seems like the DR's class idiots (here and here) are the ones who refuse to acknowledge the American democracy.

#21 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-18 02:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There is zero chance to do this.

You'd have a better chance getting rid of Tuesday.

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-18 02:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"There is zero chance to do this." - #22 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-18 02:08 PM

Not long ago there was a story posted here about how the youngest generation about to vote for the first time was disenchanted with democracy.

Twice in their lifetime a president was inaugurated who didn't win the popular vote (the will of the people).

It might be zero chance to eliminate the EC today, but don't be surprised if that generation (and subsequent generations) changes those chances.

#23 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-18 02:12 PM | Reply

King George must have found it particularly amusing that we chose to continue to organize ourselves according to arbitrary lines that he and his predecessors established for us.

#24 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-10-18 02:16 PM | Reply

In short, here is the progressive mantra: If the outcome doesn't go in favor of progressives, change the rules. If the new rules don't produce an outcome favorable to progressives, change them again.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ

Yawn.

Sure.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 02:50 PM | Reply

Thank God for the electoral college.

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-18 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag: so called "patriot"

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 02:51 PM | Reply

#25

Let's see, since Trump was elected:

The EC should have refused to elect him.

When that failed, he should be removed via emoluments clause.

When that failed, the 25th Amendment.

When that failed, he should be impeached.

That's just Trump.

The electoral college must be done away with because Hillary lost.

The Senate must be done away with because Wyoming gets the same representation as California (of course Maryland gets the same representation as Texas, but that's never mentioned).

The Supreme Court is now illegitimate because of a 5-4 conservative majority. So, the next time Democrats have congress and POTUS they should add 4 seats to the court so they can pack it.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Maryland has 6.052 million people. Wyoming at 579,315 is till not quite 1/10th of Maryland.

#28 | Posted by YAV at 2018-10-18 03:19 PM | Reply

#27 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That sounds like working toward a more perfect union. I like it.

#29 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-18 03:22 PM | Reply

"By that logic rich people should get more votes. The richer you are, the more votes you get."

No, just more bought air time.

But the very notion California and New York shouldn't have any say, when in fact they're the ones who pay a greater percentage of the bills, should be anathema to anyone who knows how to operate a calculator.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 03:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Eb is right: the EC is never going away. Why? Congress is run by a bastardized version of Robert's Rules of Order, and several states would have to give up some of the power they currently hold for the EC to be abolished. In addition, small states which now can mean a very large difference in the EC would become meaningless. There are too many constitutional scholars in those states to voluntarily cede that power.

Oh, and one more reason that's a bad idea: a close national election would unleash 100,000 "Floridas", since numerical victory might be found in any precinct across America.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 03:28 PM | Reply

The electoral college must be done away with because Hillary lost.

BS. That's your partisan spin.

The EC should be changed because modernizing our electoral process is necessary based on current demographics and geographical localization of the populace.

If one adheres to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, they shouldn't accept either group (coasters or fly overs) from dominating the other. The Constitution was all about balance and preventing the trampling of the minority by the majority. Oddly enough, we currently have a situation where the majority is trampled by the minority.

And if you actually believe in our system of government that should be unacceptable to you.

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"When that failed, he should be removed via emoluments clause."

You of all people JeffJ should want a President removed for violating the Emoluments Clause.

But you don't, because you're not the person you make yourself out to be.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-18 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If you can't win the popular vote in more than 20 out of 50 states (which is all both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton), there's a good argument to be made that you can't claim a majority of the nation supports you.

If you got rid of the electoral college, you'd have to change the name of the country. It wouldn't be the United States anymore, it would be the United State.

#34 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-18 03:46 PM | Reply

If you can't win the popular vote in more than 20 out of 50 states (which is all both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton), there's a good argument to be made that you can't claim a majority of the nation supports you.

That's random nonsense you pulled from you know where.

There's no requirement to gain the popular vote in X number of states. People's opinion in CA or NY are exactly as worthy as those in WY or LA.

In any case, I don't agree that going to a pure popular vote is really the way to go. But the EC as it currently functions needs to go.

It wouldn't be the United States anymore, it would be the United State.

Because the process for electing one of three branches of government changed? Hardly.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There was no discussion of removing the EC until Hillary lost what was deemed as a "sure thing". And this was just one of the excuses we've had to listen to up to today, you know, like the Russians, the FBI, Wikileaks, crosscheck, withcraft, etc, about why she lost. She lost. Remember the outrage of the Dems when that horrible candidate with the wide ankles, said that Trump wouldn't accept the results of the election, and this was just horrible for the country? Well guess who's still having problems dealing with the results of a legitimate election? Hint: they crap donkey poop.

#36 | Posted by Spork at 2018-10-18 03:50 PM | Reply

"There was no discussion of removing the EC until Hillary lost"

That's not really the way this story goes.

Nebraska already splits their EC representation to reflect voter sentiment instead of a winner take all system.

The distortion of the EC, especially the Winner Take All way most states assign electors, has been contentious for a loooong time.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-18 03:53 PM | Reply

"There's no requirement to gain the popular vote in X number of states."

Never said there was. But the EC indirectly helps prevent candidates who can't even win a plurality of states from being elected. And that's arguably a good thing. The president is supposed to represent the whole country, not just a geographic fraction of it.

#38 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-18 03:58 PM | Reply

"There was no discussion of removing the EC until Hillary lost what was deemed as a "sure thing".

You must be a younger voter. There was lots of talk about it after Gore lost to Bush in 2000, for years.

#39 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-18 03:59 PM | Reply

"There was no discussion of removing the EC until Hillary lost "

#1 Pick up a history book, for gods sake.

#2 If you believe the opposite results (HRC winning, but losing the popular vote) wouldn't have brought the same discussion (just by a different set of talking heads) you're crazy.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 04:01 PM | Reply

"The president is supposed to represent the whole country, not just a geographic fraction of it."

The President is supposed to represent the people of the country, not the piles of dirt we call "states."

That's what the Congress is for.

And Congress is biased towards less populated states, in both halves, albeit one less so than the other. As is the Electoral College itself.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-18 04:04 PM | Reply

"the EC indirectly helps prevent candidates who can't even win a plurality of states"

How stupid does one have to be to equate NY, CA, and TX to Delaware and the Dakotas?

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 04:05 PM | Reply

Never said there was. But the EC indirectly helps prevent candidates who can't even win a plurality of states from being elected.

I don't think you should necessarily have to "win" a state. If ND has 3 EC delegates and 1/3 vote for one candidate and 2/3 vote for the other then that 1/3 of voters should have their vote represented at the national level.

IMO it's not about plurality but about having the election results as accurately as possible represent the votes cast.

And that's arguably a good thing. The president is supposed to represent the whole country, not just a geographic fraction of it.

You can that even under the EC.

It's more or less what we have now where spiting liberals is a consideration for enacting policy.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 04:11 PM | Reply

"Never said there was. But the EC indirectly helps prevent candidates who can't even win a plurality of states from being elected. And that's arguably a good thing"

So says a right wing conservative who was happy when Bush was handed the Presidency by the SC and Trump got to cheat his way into the WH. Not impressed with your argument.

It, basically "my guy won so the EC s a good ting."

#44 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-18 04:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-There was no discussion of removing the EC until Hillary lost

There still isn't....no serious discussion

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-18 04:38 PM | Reply

the EC indirectly helps prevent candidates who can't even win a plurality of states from being elected. And that's arguably a good thing.
#38 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Key word is "arguably". I argue that the less populous states matter less and therefore winning a plurality of them is less important than winning a majority of individuals' votes. I believe this because I care more about democratic principles than arbitrary state lines.

#46 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-18 04:40 PM | Reply

#45 | POSTED BY EBERLY

That remains true as long as you rightwing dingbats are allowed to give your misinformed opinions.

#47 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-18 04:41 PM | Reply

dump the EC.

#48 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-10-18 05:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I care more about democratic principles than arbitrary state lines.

That's where we differ. I care more about individuality and property rights.

#49 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-18 05:48 PM | Reply

But the very notion California and New York shouldn't have any say, when in fact ... - #30 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 03:23 PM
Woo...look at all the straw being slain.

#50 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-10-18 06:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So says a right wing conservative who was happy when Bush was handed the Presidency by the SC and Trump got to cheat his way into the WH. Not impressed with your argument.
It, basically "my guy won so the EC s a good ting.""

You're a pathetic partisan hack, projecting your partisan hackery on to me. If a left wing liberal lost the popular vote but won the EC, my position would still be the same. I doubt yours would.

#51 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-18 06:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I care more about individuality and property rights.

#49 | POSTED BY BOAZ

If only your alleged voting record supported that claim.... Too bad instead you vote for the reduction of personal rights and increase of corporate rights; which are designed walk all over your individuality and reduce our ability to gain personal property. This is why you ignorant voters are the most dangerous of all.

#52 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-18 06:19 PM | Reply

I care more about individuality

Then you should support maximizing the meaning of an individual's vote. Dump the EC right?

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 06:20 PM | Reply

#51 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

I like how you ignore the fact that republicans only win the EC through cheating. If a liberal wins the EC but loses the popular vote, that would be a fluke. When republicans do it, its a tactic -- achieved through voter suppression and gerrymandering.

#54 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-18 06:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Then you should support maximizing the meaning of an individual's vote. Dump the EC right?

No. The EC is the only thing stopping California and NY from changing the entire U.S. into a CA and NY. I like the way the EC is. It ensures politics stay local. I like being able to say "NO" to CA. Maybe CA will keep their -------- in CA and stop trying to export it everywhere else.

#55 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-19 08:24 AM | Reply

No it isn't. The House and Senate would still be locally decided.

A POTUS that matches the national electorate would mean things like compromise would have to be used again.

And God knows we can't have that, can we?

#56 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-19 11:56 AM | Reply

#55 | POSTED BY BOAZ"

If California is so bad, why would its 40 million residents vote to make the rest of the nation like them?

If we can't make the US like California, why should we 40 million instead be subject to the whims of a few hundred thousand goat-f ucking rednecks and their fake religion-based policies?

#57 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-19 12:57 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort