LindaK wrote:
.
Agree, that’s about the only way they can win the Nov elections along with eliminating our Electors too. This time around their plan also includes removing their competition too. Biden denied Kennedy’s (I) even having sec serv protection. How can one presidential candidate make that decision over another competitors/candidates safety?????
Your conspiracy theories are too weak to hold back the overwhelming evidence.
For example, the Democrats have a strong democratic advantage. This is very evident in the popular vote which is quite simply a tally of everyone's vote. Trump has never won a popular vote. He lost the popular vote by 3 million in 2016 and he lost it again in 2020, this time by 8 million votes.
So clearly, more Americans have been voting Democrat since at least 2016 and it appears this imparity is increasing. In 2016 Trump got lucky when the distortion of the electoral college worked in his favor. In 2020, it seems the 8 million vote deficit was too much for the electoral college to smear.
So your absurd claim that Democrats can't win without eliminating the EC has already been debunked and it's the Republicans, not the Democrats that are looking for ways to distort the will of the people.
Most people have no clue what the EC actually is or why it was established, which is why they don't understand how it's broken. It has nothing to do with protecting the small states, which is a rampant delusion often hoisted in a desperate attempt to validate the broken EC.
While The People elect their representatives with a popular vote, they do not technically vote for the president; Congress does. But to avoid corruption, a proxy called the Electoral College is used where electors are selected much like jurors are in a trial. Each state get's one elector per representative. So again, it's not about giving small states a boost, it's about avoiding the potential corruption that comes with allowing representatives to vote directly for a president.
This was actually very good design and it worked fine for over a century, but that's because representation expanded to keep up with the population thereby, insuring equal representation. Federalist 58 states that one of the “unequivocal objects” of the population census is “to augment the number of representatives … under the sole limitation that the whole number [of Representatives] shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand inhabitants.”
So, if two states each have 60,000 people, they would both have two representatives. If one of the states experiences a population boom resulting in 30,000 more people, a seat would be added to Congress to maintain a ratio of 1 for every 30,000. So now we have one state with 60,000 people and two representatives and the other with 90,000 people and three representatives... Everyone is equally represented.
All good so far...
But then Congress decided to stop expanding after the 1910 census and that's when the system broke. 1910 was in the middle of the industrial revolution and the states where industry was growing rapidly was experiencing massive population booms but without an expanding Congress, the people of these industrial states were forced to share one representative between 60,000 people or even more.
So it's not that there is anything wrong with the EC, per se. The problem is that it's based on the number of representatives which no longer provides equal representation for the people. So we have to ask ourselves. Is such unequal representation worth the rule that The People can't just vote for the president the same way they vote for their representatives, by popular vote?
Unfortunately, those in sparsely populated regions are fighting all efforts to fix the problem because the problem just happens to work in their favor. So my message to them is pretty simple... F u c k Y o u.
As for this nonsense that the EC is there to protect the little states, that comes from a combination of realizing that the current condition underlying the EC DOES give small states an unfair advantage and and effort to justify it by blurring the lines between the EC and past compromises, such as the 3/5th rule, which gave the southern states the advantage of counting each slave as 3/5ths of a person even though slaves couldn't vote. This was a compromise the northern states had to accept in order to get the southern states to sign on to the Constitution but since the Civil War, there has been no provision for "protecting" small states and that was NEVER the intention of the EC anyway.