Democrat Steve Cohen introduces constitutional amendment to abolish Electoral College

It is true that the term mob rule is little understood and often not explained. I see the plan of the Framers of the Constitution to create a government with limited powers. The power of Congress was enumerated and it had two branches. The presidency was created to improve on the Articles of Confederation that only had a Congress. The judiciary was also separated from Congress. The states and the people retained all that was not federalized. The republic would have elections by the people and be protected against a concentration of power. The protection against mob rule means a limit on the power of the people which can become oppressive and overturn the rights of the minority of voters and change the system. The democracy means not only the system but the class of voters. The power of the voters was expressed through representatives instead of a direct democracy. Direct democracy can lead to sudden changes which is disruptive. Fundamental change by amendment requires a super majority and more processes than ordinary legislation.

How is it not mob rule though Tee?? The mobs (meaning the democrat controlled western and eastern states) being they have more voters in them 10 or so states, than the combined # of voters in the rest of the country, would easily overrule the rest of the country if we went to just a popular vote.
So as it stands, with the EC, at least they have to pay attention to every other state BARRING those 10 big ones.

Mobocracy is coming. And he is one of its enablers.

We should never forget who our sworn enemies are.

Another thing that disbanding of Electoral College would facilitate is invasion via mass “migration”. The “migrants” can dominate one or two states (say, CA and NY) and, by rapidly growing their populations there, be able to complete their hostile takeover (on behalf of their masters) of America.

It’s like if Communist China and the US decided to decide all issues by means of popular vote: their 1.5 billion against our 330 million.

And since in CA especially, ILLEGALS DO VOTE, eventually they will rule.. UNLESS WE STOP THIS idiocy.

I didn’t call this mob rule. I stated that mob rule is what the Democrat Party wants. Only until they gain total control. At that time the guns can be turned back on the mob. It’s Helter Skelter fifty years late.
Illegals are serving in government in California. Portland, OR. is a perfect example.
Rule of law is out and coercion through violent compassion is in.
Mob rule.

This is exactly why any thought of a Constitutional Convention must be resisted, especially for the non coastal smaller states. Once such a Convention started messing with our Constitution, there’s no telling what would come out of it.

Of course the Dems want to change to “popular vote”. They own the population centers, but thankfully we live in a Republic and California and New York don’t run things.

We can call, write and do all we want. BUT I DOUBT even if we did so, he’d be recalled and removed from office.

One more time, there is NO federal recall.

You can mark me down with your childish little stars but it doesn’t change the FACT that there is NO federal recall and you make yourself look DUMB by continuing to advise people to do something they cannot do.

Maybe that’s something that needs to change. IF WE can recall our town’s mayor, sheriff etc, WHY SHOULDN’T we have the power to recall a senator or congresspleb?

Some ways to count are misleading.

Those numbers don’t take into account the populations of the different counties, and they disregard the numbers of Trump and Clinton voters in each county.

The ideal of our voting system is “one person, one vote”, not “one county, one vote” or “one state, one vote” or “one acre, one vote” or “one dollar, one vote.” The Electoral College system goes against that idea, by making the votes of citizens in some states much more influential than the votes of other citizens. In a presidential election, should it take 3 1/2 Californians to equal the vote of one Wyomingite? Should smaller states retain their advantage here, as well as in the Senate? That’s a fair question to discuss.

(Some people are even calling for the abolition of the Senate, a much more drastic change than eliminating the Electoral College. They argue that our system of representation was conceived in a time where states didn’t have the dramatic differences in population we have now. Indeed — let me check some numbers — the ratio between the most and least populous states was 9 to 1 in the 1790 census, between Virginia and Delaware, counting only free persons; compared to 66 to 1 in the 2010 census, between California and Wyoming.)

The fact remains that 62,984,828 people (46.1% of voters) voted for Donald Trump, while 65,853,514 people (48.2%) voted for Hillary Clinton. In most elections, in most countries, that would make Hillary the winner.

The French had a GREAT idea after Marie Antoinette told them to, “eat cake!”

You’re ABSOLUTELY WRONG. We have a Constitutional Republic. No where in the Constitution is a democracy mentioned. In fact, the framers wrote in their position papers against such a system since they understood that it was antithetical to The Rule of Law.

They also intended the selection of Senators by the Several States’ legislatures to be an additional roadblock to the power of the federal government, but the Several States threw away much of their power by changing to direct election of Senators. The founders were likely looking down on our Untied States with disdain when that amendment was ratified.

I’m not sure I understand. They wouldn’t win 100% in any of those states. And Republicans in California would actually be more motivated to get out and vote knowing their vote actually counts! I think a large portion of Republicans are suppressed in blue states because they know their votes don’t count.

What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if in 2020 the GOP candidate gets 3M more votes but because they manage to tip Pennsylvania or Ohio, we lose? I just think a vote should be equal no matter where in the US you live.

What do you mean? We’ve won the popular vote before, and we’ll win it again. Simply put, the Electoral College means a vote in Ohio is WAY WAY more important than a vote in Texas. Do you think that’s right?

[ We’ve won the popular vote before, and we’ll win it again.]

With how many whakked out commucrat brain dead indoctrinated fools, our colleges keep cranking out, i can’t ever see a day in the immediate future, where we will win the popular vote…

I read it. I understand it all. I understand the electoral college and why it was adopted. I just think that every year, it become less and less relevant in our nation. I’m sick of not having a voice in electing our President.

You may have read it but you do not understand it. If you did you would not be calling to eliminate the only thing that gives voters in small states representation in presidential elections.

Once the Electoral College is gone presidential elections will be determined by blue states with large populations and no conservative votes anywhere will count.

More teaching, reading and understanding necessary. We don’t elect Presidents. We elect Electors to Electoral College to cast our votes for President for us. It’s been working pretty well since our founding.

Which is why we MUST rest control of our indoctrination centers FROM the liberals. TO STOP THEM cranking out thousands of more brain dead morons year after year..

Hope all you wish. BUT last chart i saw on ca. showed, even IF EVERY republican out there voted, JUST LA and San fran areas alone, would still ‘droun out’ their vote…

“Why should we support a system in which a vote in Ohio is WAY WAY more valuable as one in New York, or Texas, or Alabama?”

A vote in Ohio is NOT WAY, WAY more valuable than a vote in New York, or Texas, or Alabama

All of the states, each, get two votes in the Electoral College because of their Senator

So what one is arguing to have a popular vote is to eliminate the 100 votes from the 538 because 438 are nothing but popular vote

And since states do not cast ballots by which congressional district but a majority vote of a state we are not talking about why a vote in one state has way more value, but two cities, New York and Loa Angeles, which means about 4% of the population will determine the will of the other 96%

If the 435 Congressional Districts gave their vote Hillary won 205, a Trump 230

So going popular vote ONLY allows a minority of 4% to determine the outcome for a majority of 96%

I thought liberals were against the 1% ruling everything but this is all they are doing

Would you go as far as Heinlein, and limit voting to veterans?

48 states use winner-take-all. Only Maine and Nebraska select electors based on the winner of each congressional district, with the statewide winner getting the two additional electors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Electors