Hillary's snowflakes still fighting Electoral College

The one in blue is still crying

There's nothing more enjoyable to me than to see photos of people crying over Hillary Clinton's presidential loss to Donald Trump. It gives me a modicum of faith that all is well with the nation.

A leftist-led attempt to overhaul the Electoral College could actually make it to the courtroom as a Harvard professor who ran as a dark-horse Democratic presidential candidate promises to legally change the electoral system. If successful, the voters on both coasts and illegal immigrants would have the final say in the nation's leadership. 

Hillary recently said she wants the system "eliminated" so that she might give it another shot in 2020 before she goes totally senile. But she doesn't want the entire system dismantled, but the winner-take-all system used by 48 states in awarding electors.

In other words, Hillary wants a system that would help her win next time, if there is a 'next time' for her. If Trump keeps his campaign promise however, she will be in the slammer.

The professor, Lawrence Lessig, said, in previewing his legal case to challenge the Electoral College, "With a winner-take-all, most of America is ignored."

Photo: Reuters

Lessig argues the current electoral system violates the 14th Amendment's one-man-one-vote principle as all but two states award all electors to the winner of the state's popular vote. And while he isn't decided which states to focus on (I bet it isn't going to be New York and California) he said 24 people have volunteered to be plaintiffs.

"We're looking for a Republican from a blue state whose vote never counts and a Democrat from a red state whose vote never counts," he said.

Although Lessig was for a very brief period, a Democratic candidate for president in the 2016 election, he insists this isn't a partisan endeavor and if you believe him, you probably are an avid reader of Slate and Media Matters. 

It would require a constitutional amendment for Lessig to win change in the current system. He prefers a proportional system where a losing candidate could still get a percentage of the state's electors based on the popular vote.

Defenders of the current system say that it provides stability.

Gary Rose, chairman of the political science department at Sacred Heart university said that "Under a district plan, we could see a number of third-party candidates emerge, competing for a narrow portion of the vote by just running in congressional districts. A proportional system would be a recipe for France, a multi-party system, with a plethora of small parties that are hardly bigger than an interest group."

Under those conditions, Rose said, presidential candidates would ignore the smaller states. "A national popular vote would be a detriment to the American people, and many voters would really feel disenfranchised if the campaign moved only to the urban areas," Rose said.

Trump won 306 electoral votes to Clinton's 232. But Clinton won the plurality of popular votes 48.5 percent to Trump's 46.4 percent. Ironically, under a district plan, Trump would have won 290 electoral votes and under a proportional system, he would have won 267 to Clinton's 265. A third party would have won six electoral votes and the House of Representatives would have had the final decision on the election.

With Lessig being a Democrat, his own analysis of a proportional system had Clinton winning 270 to 267. And while he says his reasoning has nothing to do with his political leaning, obviously it does.




Tweet