Thursday, November 17, 2016

Yet Another Reason Why the Electoral College May Not be Abolished

My chief of research chimed in with this reason: In a national election decided entirely by the popular vote, voter fraud in one or a few states could routinely decide the national election.

Those of you who recall the failed conspiracy by Democrat nominee Al Gore, Democrat Party, and the MSM to steal the 2000 election after the fact (not to mention the Democrats’ successful theft of the 1960 election on behalf of John Kennedy) know that even in a federalist electoral system, like the one we have, voter fraud can still determine the outcome. And Hillary Clinton’s purported edge in the popular vote in the 2016 election was much smaller than the likely amount of voter fraud. (And no, voter fraud is not a two-way street.)

But we needn’t make it still easier for the Democrats to impose a one-party dictatorship!


jeigheff said...

We will never stop hearing about how Hillary supposedly got the popular vote in this election.

Anonymous said...

Winning the electoral college means you have broad based support across the entire range of the country and not restricted to a few large states with large cities.

This is now apparent and was not even [?] apparent to the Founding Fathers?

The Presidency can be won by winning six major cities. Win those cities and you win those states and the electoral votes for same. The electoral votes from those six states alone can put you over the top.

Cities predominantly inhabited by minorities. And located on the east coast and the west coast and everything in between becomes irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Those six cities that can make or break a Presidential candidate not mentioned but I can guess:

NYC, Philly, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, maybe Newark.

Win those cities and you can win the Presidency. The rest be damned.

Anonymous said...

That total from the six states does not add up to beyond 270. Assumptions are off somehow.