Democrat introduces bill to eliminate the Electoral College so his party can steal power and rule forever

By their actions, Democrats continue to prove they cannot accept the reality of election results that do not favor their candidates.

The latest example comes from Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., who has introduced legislation that would eliminate the Electoral College and allow presidents to be decided by simple majorities, which could favor Democratic candidates in the foreseeable future.

“In two presidential elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of the distorting effect of the outdated Electoral College,” he said in a statement. 

“Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office. More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators. It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President,” he added.

A second bill would prevent presidents from pardoning themselves or members of their families, a piece of legislation that appears to anticipate POTUS Donald Trump being put in that position at some point in the near future. Of course, if that were the law of the land, then Bill Clinton would never have had the authority to pardon his own brother for drug charges before he left the White House.

To the issue of eliminating the Electoral College, this is nothing new for Democrats — though they are strangely silent on the issue when Democrats win the presidency. That said, the constitutional ignorance on their part is stunning.

Article II, Sect. 1 of the Constitution establishes the Electoral College specifically for the purpose of choosing presidents and their running mates. Each state gets the same number of electors as it has representatives and senators in Congress.

Each candidate has his or her own electors in each state who are generally picked by the candidate’s political party. In debating how presidents should be selected, the Electoral College — a process, not a place — was a compromise between election by popular vote and election by Congress.

The founders decided against the popular vote because they were concerned that heavily populated regions and states of the country would always be choosing the president, leaving small states with little say. 

They then decided against the congressional vote for the same reason: Large states have more representatives than smaller states. 

The system doesn’t function as designed when we change it, and everyone loses

As for Cohen’s statement about the election of U.S. senators, it may be constitutionally correct but historically that’s not what our founders wanted — and for good reason.

As part of the ‘great compromise,’ candidates running for the House of Representatives would be elected by popular vote — an advantage for larger states. To even that out, each state would have the same number of senators — two — and they would be selected by state legislatures, which are also elected by popular vote. House members were to represent the people and senators were to represent states. (Related: America’s longest-serving congressman just called for abolishing the Senate.)

That changed with the ratification of the 17th Amendment, introduced and backed by the first modern “progressive,” Woodrow Wilson. The 17th Amendment changed the Constitution to allow senators to also be elected by popular vote, thereby negating state representation in Congress. Because most state legislatures today are controlled by Republicans, the makeup of the U.S. Senate would be much different (and likely filibuster-proof) if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified.

Also, there is no “crisis” in the current system. While Cohen is right that two presidents since the 2000 election were decided not by majorities but by the Electoral College, the 2016 election marked only the fifth time in our history that has happened. Also, in 1992 Bill Clinton won a majority of electoral votes but because there was a substantial third-party challenge from Ross Perot, Clinton only received a plurality — 43 percent — of the popular vote.

The constitutional system bequeathed us by our founders was the most comprehensive and unique form of government in history and remains so. When it is changed, however, it ceases to work as designed and our democratic processes no longer function properly.

This video explains the Electoral College well:

Read more about Democratic assaults on our liberties and Constitution at

Sources include:

comments powered by Disqus