Elizabeth Warren this week became the primary voice of support and first official candidate of 2020 to propose eliminating the Electoral College and moving to a National Popular Vote. This idea has long been discussed and continually rejected, because it would effectively eliminate the voice of nearly every state in the union. The Electoral College protects smaller states and ensures that every state's voters are heard.
"Senator Warren and all proponents of the National Popular Vote are essentially arguing in favor of silencing half of the voters in this nation," said Ed Martin, president of Phyllis Schlafly Eagles.
"Don't be fooled when she says that we should eliminate the Electoral College because 'every vote matters.' The electoral college is the ONLY thing that protects the votes of the citizens of small and less-populated states. Phyllis Schlafly and many legal, constitutional, and electoral experts have long warned us that eliminating the Electoral College would essentially lead to presidential candidates campaigning only in New York and Southern California where they can find big donors and large population centers.
"Moving to a National Popular Vote would ensure only one thing — that the voices of all voters in Middle America, Democrat and Republican alike, would be rendered unheard and irrelevant. We must not let the Democrats' bitterness over losing the 2016 election disenfranchise three-fourths of our states and their voters."
Ed Martin provided a lengthy and in-depth interview on this topic to VCY American Radio. A podcast of it can be found here.
9 comments:
Except middle America is already irrelevant because we have so few electors that politicians don't bother to campaign here. Furthermore, the Midwest is solidly red, so Dems don't come regardless.
So, the real issue is that under the current system, red states votes count more as we have seen with Dems winning the popular vote twice but not securing the presidency. If everyone's vote is given equal weight as would happen with a popular-only voting system, Reps stand to be shut out of the presidency.
I mean, I get it--you don't want to lose. Just fucken be honest about it. Like, you are fooling no one here.
Your stand on this is rather weak. When republicans skew the demographics of certain precincts then you and your kind defeat the purpose of electoral college. Actual vote count should really matter because that is what the system was to be, one person, one vote. Best person win and not how you can rig the system by disenfranchising those who do not have the money to buy the local politicians. It was good until you and your kind mucked it up.
presidential candidates campaigning only in New York and Southern California where they can find big donors
I guess old Phyllis Schlafly never thought of the Koch brothers and the vast network of rwnj stink tanks they supposedly fund and support.
I guess old Phyllis Schafley never heard of the rich shingle guy. Whatzis name?
You miss the big picture. The president is a figure head and not the real power of the people. Each state gets equal representation because each state, no matter the size or amount of money they have gets two senators. Each person, or each 600,000 people get a representative. That was the old way and now it has to be changed based on a set number of representatives for the whole country so the number of representatives from each state is determined by their population. Sorry the eastern and western states have large populations, but that is where the most people are and they should have the largest voice in matters of the country. You are off base because the central states have great power in their senators and that in many ways erks the eastern and western states who in many cases adds more to the country.
Do we really need two Dakota's?
More sour grapes from the goPEEs!
They spend a lot of time doing unto others with secret redistricting schemes (REDMAP- google it) but listen to them squeal if they think anyone is fixing to do unto them what they so gleefully do to others!
Dems...lose an election? Change the rules.
The EC is unequal, therefore undemocratic. It is also biased. I think that voting for any election should be about the votes of the people, not the votes of a few people in each State. The EC is not in touch with the people anyway. To me, voting has taken on a very negative connotation. Rhetoric, lies, and money are all that it takes nowadays to be elected to something. This last election has me disgusted with our current process.
Idiot.
The last election is a prime example as to why presidential elections are decided the way they are. This country is not, never has been and was never intended to be a democracy. The EC worked exactly how it was intended to work in the last election.
Go read a book and stop crying.
Post a Comment