This has only happened five times in our history. The winner of the presidential race wins the Electoral College but loses the popular vote. This is how the president was elected in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016. And yet we survived. Besides, it only happened five times. It’s sporadic, but 2016 was different because of Trump. Democrats were counting on Hillary Clinton to win. The media expected him to win, but that didn’t happen. She lost. He is a two-time loser. She will never become president. Still, liberals seethed over the results. They still are. So what do they do? Well, they’re starting the “abolish the Electoral College” mantra. The system in which we elected our president was attacked as undemocratic and racist. Eye roll alert. In Colorado, yes ball rolling trying to pass legislation that ties a state’s electoral votes to who wins the popular vote (via Denver Post Office):
A Colorado bill that could facilitate change the way the country elects its president is heading to a final vote after a House committee rejected a party-line vote Tuesday night.
The bill would add Colorado to an agreement among a growing number of states to award Electoral College votes to whoever wins the nationwide popular vote for president. It passed the Senate in January without a single Republican vote and now heads to the House of Representatives, where Democrats have a enormous majority.
The debate on the bill lasted overdue into the night on Tuesday, and most of it focused on whether it was constitutional to unite the states and fundamentally change the presidential election. And although only a few of the more than 80 people who testified mentioned President Donald Trump by name, the results of the 2016 election (in which Trump lost the popular vote) were reflected in the testimony of people on both sides of the issue.
Jenna Ellis, a constitutional law attorney who works for Colorado Family Action, gave the committee three reasons why she believes the bill is unconstitutional.
First, it would violate a section of the U.S. Constitution called the Compact Clause, which states that states cannot enter into compacts among themselves without federal approval. Second, the bill would overhaul the Electoral College without changing the Constitution. Third, it could impact the portion of the 12th Amendment that gives Congress the power to decide the president if no candidate receives the 270 votes required to win the Electoral College.
[…]
Rep. Jeni Arndt, D-Fort Collins, disagreed with Ellis on whether her bill violates the Compact Clause. She pointed to several rulings of the Supreme Court in which it allows states to conclude certain agreements. She also said the U.S. Constitution gives states full or absolute power to decide how to reward their voters.
I still don’t know where I’m stuck on this. For now, our system works. On the other hand, the argument for this interstate compact is that it can eliminate bad social policies tailored solely to the needs of the battleground states. No Child Left Behind was created to win over the Volvo-driving soccer moms of Ohio, a state the GOP (and Bush’s team) needed to win; NCLB produced mixed results at best and accelerated the federalization of education. Again, I do not support this change, although when I attended a seminar on the Interstate Compact, one of the things that was appealing was that both sides could run whatever campaigns they wanted. Republicans can stand on freedom and economic freedom, and smaller government and liberals can stand on a hardcore Green New Deal. I think we would have won easily. For now, though, I’m not one to hesitate. The Electoral College has served us well. He still does it. And with the Democratic Party undergoing a crazy leftist turn that will alienate moderates and independents, I think there will be more ways to skin the electoral cat, as they say.
