As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Dems New Tactic: The Electoral College is Racist

Democrats still mourning the outcome of last month’s election have added a new step to their grieving process: leveling charges of racism against those who support the constitutional method of electing the president.

In keeping with the process stipulated in the Twelfth Amendment, 538 electors representing all 50 states gathered on Monday to cast their ballots for the 45th president. The result – that Donald Trump will officially enter the Oval Office on Jan. 20 – was affirmed by the Electoral College, an institution the Left is now casting as racist and anti-Democratic.

Mere hours after Trump had topped the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, liberal filmmaker Michael Moore tweeted: “Hello rest of the world! My fellow Americans are asleep right now so I thought we could talk and maybe explain what happened yesterday.”

“This racist idea, the Electoral College, 225 years later ended up benefitting the candidate who spewed racism hate,” he opined.

The New York Times, in an editorial on Tuesday, described the centuries-old institution as “a living symbol of America’s original sin,” arguing that it was created at a time when “slavery was the law of the land” and a national popular vote would have “disadvantaged” Southern slave states, where blacks could not vote but were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of a population count.

Please read the rest of this story at the Washington Examiner.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

33 Responses to Dems New Tactic: The Electoral College is Racist

  1. Some have speculated that without the electoral college in this election, the state of California alone would have given Clinton the win.

    Is it racist to deny Iowa a voice in electing their president?
    I think it would be.

    Suck it up snowflakes, YOU LOST.
    And for this country’s sake, it’s a damn good thing you did.

    • California Democratic votes in 2016 are 6.4% of the total national popular vote.

      The 4.3 million vote difference in California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.

      California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
      31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton

      In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
      About 62% Democratic

      California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.

      8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

  2. And here we thought the Dems were all about being inclusive in everything.
    They are right about the Electoral college not being “democratic” – it’s not. We aren’t a democracy in the whole sense of the word, but rather a republic.
    The USA is the UNITED STATES of America, not the United People of America.
    The Founding Fathers understood, way back then, that a city like Philadelphia would elect the President without any care for Virginia’s resident farmers.
    Their Electoral College was a brilliant answer to a collection of states with different populations – and it still works today.
    The Dems/MSM are causing all manner of grief for themselves (and all of us) with their refusal to admit MrTrump followed the rules and won the election.
    We’re ready to yell Stop It! and act like adults before there can never be a ‘united’ states for all of us.

    • Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

      Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.

      Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

      Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

      The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

      The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state’s electoral votes

    • Given the historical fact that 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about presidential candidates being elected by only big cities.

      The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

      Voters in the biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

      16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

      16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
      The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

      Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

      • “Given the historical fact that 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about presidential candidates being elected by only big cities.”

        Actually, they were, and these were prime concerns. At the Constitutional Convention, “Pennsylvania Delegate Benjamin Franklin summed up the disagreement: “If a proportional representation takes place, the small States contend that their liberties will be in danger. If an equality of votes is to be put in its place, the large States say their money will be in danger. When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit the artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint.”
        Both the equal representation of the Senate, and the weighted apportionment used in the House (since repealed by the 14th Amendment) came specifically out of this.

        The US House official history site also notes that ” Southern delegates argued that their slaves counted in the population, yielding them more Representatives. Northern delegates countered that slaves were property and should not be counted at all. The result was the notorious “Three-Fifths Compromise,” where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a free person. Having originated in tax policy, this rule was defended during the Convention as a necessary compromise given the “peculiar” state of slaves as both property and “moral” individuals subject to criminal law. Virginia’s James Madison wrote in Federalist 54 that the reasoning appeared “to be a little strained in some points” but “fully reconciles me to the scale of representation, which the Convention have established.”
        http://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Proportional-Representation/

        (We actually have a similar problem today, with states like California demanding what the slave states wanted back then: the right to count non-citizen illegal aliens as “whole persons” for purposes of congressional representation.)

        Even Noah Webster said his work was in part to protect rural people from being constantly out of date through use of words considered unfashionable by the urbane city dweller.

        Also of significant influence, not only during development of the Constitution, but also of Federal policy over the following half-century or more, was what became known as Thomas Jefferson’s “Agrarian Ideal”, which identified the extreme tension between self-sufficient “yeoman farmers” and the “corruption” of dependent, unstable, city populations caused by the intense trading interests of urban areas: industry, factories, banking, etc.

        • Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
          “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
          The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

          Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

          In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

          The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

          The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

          States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

        • Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

          None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
          The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

    • With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn’t be about winning a handful of battleground states.

      Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

      Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

      Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

      State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

      In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

      In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

      The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

      Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

      Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

      Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

      • A far better solution would be to end the disenfranchisement of voters in California, New York, and other heavily urban states by more granular awarding of Electoral College votes by county. This would assure that the people who live amongst each other – ie “peers” – are more likely to have their voices heard.

        The simplest answer is not to push for more mob rule, but to eliminate the mob all together by allowing each county or small group of geographic counties (not gerymandered districts) to speak for themselves instead of being bullied by Los Angeles, NYC, et al

        • Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three.

        • The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

    • With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

      A presidential candidate could lose, winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

    • The democratic party a/k/a the American Communist party, is so filled with dumb, un-American lunatics that it should be abolished, they are all traitors to America seeking I don’t know what from “white people”. Please, the racism is in their party, not mine. They don’t even try to hide it, I guess it all started with the enemy within Obama, who has started all kinds of trouble here and in the Middle East. He hsould have been impeached as he is not a “President” for all the people? the guy is just plain mentally ill, or he wouldn’t project such a hatred for the next president, or you can say that he has a very low I.Q. and he acts like a manic depressive and/or high school boy. He is a very sick person who should never have been president, he wasn’t qualified and he has a mental defect who now is deleting our terror watch lists? If that doesn’t tell us all something, then I don’t know what else would. I only hope that someone somewhere either has made a copy of this terror watchlist that he has deleted. Obama is a rat, he shouldn’t be allowed to do the things he is doing against the United States of America. Wake up Congress for a change! Why have you let this enemy hurt us since 2008 when he blatantly without flaunts his crimes to the U.S.? There have been many deaths because of Obama and it seems he likes it that way. I blame the rest of our government who never lifts a finger to protect us from this Satan.

      • I agree with you, Lizzy. All the people in government who chose not to obey the law but instead to do as they were told, who refused to stand up and say “no”, who watched what was happening and went along because as long as they have their paychecks they don’t really care about America or other people… they are 100% as much to blame as any people at the top. When the swamp is drained, they need to be first to go. I want to see repeal of every law & rule protecting Fed workers – repeal of Merit Protections System Board, repeal of NoFEAR Act, outlawing of public unions, abolish “career” civil service ..all just a start.

  3. The Democrat leadership and their associated moon bats have lost the Presidency, the Congress and most of the state governorships and legislatures. This development has occurred because of their corrupt agenda and the tactics they are using to insult and divide us. I’m begging them to continue to insult, demean, slur, mock and demean the American people. Those tactics are destroying them completely, and it will soon be good riddance to the Democrat party as it now exists. There is no hope for them at this rate. They are just too stupid to figure it out.

  4. I hope the democrats keep it up; grown ass people acting like 5 year olds. This is good, because they will continue to be marginalized to the prostitute media, big cities, entertainment, and college campuses. I hope they throw fits, foam at the mouth, roll around in the dirt for the next 4 years. The rest of us will get on with the business of helping Trump rebuild this country. democrats are their own worse enemy with their tantrums, hyerbole, hysterics and outlandish behavior and irresponsible commentary. The more they accuse people of islamaphobia, the more terrorist attacks there are. We are minding our business, it is the terrorists who are filled with hate that their rotten, backward countries are such hellholes. If their religion is so great, why are they fleeing their countries….demodummies cannot answer that question.

  5. If the election had been a popular vote race, both campaigns would have been run differently. There’s no way to claim that Trump might not have won the popular vote if that had been his goal. This kerfluffle is childish tantrumming. Time has come to ignore it.

  6. The Electoral College ensures that votes from whiter states are more heavily weighted. That’s unfair and undemocratic. All votes should count equally. If you don’t believe that, just say so.

    • Bullshit.

      By that ‘logic’ the US Senate is also unfair and undemocratic.

      You lost according to the rules. Don’t like it? Tough. Run a better candidate next time.

    • Lee…we are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. Pure or direct democracies (of which there have been very few–Ancient Athens, Switzerland (at the local level) and a few others for a short period of time–inevitably led to chaos, and crushing doom. Alexander Hamilton and others of the era who agreed with him on the issue of a direct democracy said it clearly: “….that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity.”[22]

    • I guess Obama told you guys that you can take over America, well it ain’t gonna happen yet! Hitler was like Obama and the people wised up and he was gone too, just like Obama is going, along with the Clintons. Racism is in the democrat communist party and it is disgusting. All of a sudden white people are no good and should be gone? You have been listening to Obama for too long now. America doesn’t go by race like the democrats do. If you don’t like the freedom here, go somewhere else. The democrat party is not the democrat party anymore, it has become diseassed because of Obama and the Clintons. Just remember one thing, the Obamas and the Clintons told you white people are no good anymore and there are too many of them BECAUSE THE OBAMAS AND THE CLINTONS WANT TO HOLD ON TO THE POWER, THEY ARE BRAINWASHING THE DEMOCRATS JUST TO GET THE VOTES AND THE POWER AND THE MONEY TOO!

    • so true BillB, Hillary Clinton is the worst person ever to seek the presidency. She’s just a big fat trouble-maker like all the other fake democrats, They are not democrats, they are America hating racist morons. They doin’t like the freedom here, its not good enough, dumb pieces of you know what should go to the Middle East or Africa, see how they like it here. They want to ruin our country to be like the Middle East where the culture is Suicide bombs? Dumb, low I.Q. low-life, viscious democrat party of 20016. They should get lost with their stupidity.

  7. Actually, the House and the College are both illegal per the Constitution which says are district sizes are too be 30,000 people to a district. Show me an constitutional amendment that changed it??? The 1911 vote by congress wasn’t constitutional and was illegal. At best, you could argue the recent discovery by LaVergne (book on Amazon now) that Connecticut voted for all 12 of the Bill of Rights amendments and ratified the Congressional Apportionment Amendment from the Bill of Rights and raised to the districts to 50,000 per Representative was the only raising of people but the 1911 act, just wrong and no one will challenge it because of “Standing”. Let’s restore our country to a constitutional district and you’ll have a constitutional college.

    • If you believe in the Constitution, then you have to accept that the Bill of Rights had 12 amendments, not 10 and that the Congressional Apportionment Amendment is ratified by enough states (you’ve never been told how many it was short, even if you were told there were 12 amendments, not 10 but it was only short 1 state because we were told it was short one state. Connecticut ratified all 12 amendments. It can’t be argued. Anyone can go to Connecticuts archives and touch the vote. You’ll see a yes vote. Now that we know, let’s fix Congress).