Gosh, I know, it’s a terrible thing to lose an election. And Elizabeth Warren is clearly concerned that the same fate incurred by Hillary Clinton may await her – winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College.
From remarks Warren made Tuesday at the “2018 Ideas Conference” for the left-wing think tank Center for American Progress:
Democracy is crumbling around us . . . In 2016, nearly 3 million more people votd for Hllary Clinton than for Donald Trumpm. But Trump took the presidency. That is not exactly the sign of a healthy democracy. Democracy hangs on the idea that whoever gets the most votes wins. That’s the central starting point, and it’s worth repeating every single day.
So she’s already setting things up so that she can try to undermine and reverse the results of the election should she be the Democratic nominee in 2020 and win the popular vote while losing the Electoral College. Expect a sustained barrage against the Electoral College from Democrats in order to stir opposition to it and a potential crisis – even rioting in the streets – if the same thing happens in 2020 with the vote.
We keep the Electoral College today to ensure all Americans have a voice. So that presidential candidates don’t spend all their time campaigning in New York City and Los Angeles and have to make it out to Iowa and Minnesota. Democrats love diversity and multiculturalism, except when it comes to elections.
Warren surely understands that we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic, a representative democracy that prevents a tyranny of the majority and forces presidential candidates to have wide appeal to various portions of the electorate, not just respond to one or two factions. And yes, the Electoral College could still – as was intended by the Framers – prevent the ascension of a potential tyrant into office, since it still formally decides the election.
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.
The shift of the population from the North and Northeast to the South and the West recorded in the 2010 census means Obama would have won six fewer electoral votes in the 2008 election, suggesting a slightly tougher road ahead toward reelection.
States like New York, Massachusetts and Illinois, reliable Obama strongholds, will have fewer electoral votes in 2012. The gain in Texas is the biggest deal for Obama’s GOP opponent, with a win there meaning four more electoral votes than in 2008.
Now, a major reason for the shift is the increasing Hispanic population in these states. But Obama still ain’t winning states like Texas, Utah, or South Carolina, all of which gained votes.
This certainly wouldn’t have helped John McCain, who would have gotten swamped anyway. And it probably won’t make a difference in 2012. But it could.
The changes will also of course mean better odds of Republicans holding or increasing their gains in the House. The Washington Post has a good interactive map showing which states pick up and which lose House seats in 2012.