Attack of the desperate Democrats
Never mind that Russian collusion thing, say the Democrats.
They have some new ideas to get rid of that bad man in the White House who they’ll always believe colluded with the Russians to steal the presidency from Hillary Clinton.
Now, as special counsel Robert Mueller is set to release a gigantic report that will probably show Russian collusion was the Democrat hoax Trump always said it was, the party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is losing its collective mind.
Democrats are so desperate to prevent a second Trump term that their mob of 2020 presidential wannabes are throwing out every dumb, out-of-the-box, or unconstitutional idea they can think of to stop him:
—Eliminate the Electoral College.
—Lower the voting age to 6 — sorry, 16.
—Pack the Supreme Court.
The other day, Sen. Elizabeth Warren came up with getting rid of the Electoral College and electing presidents directly by popular vote.
It’s a horrible idea that only comes up when Republicans win the White House despite the wishes of huge Democrat majorities in large states like California, New York, and Illinois.
It came up in 1980 with my adoptive dad and in 2000 with Bush II.
Here it is again with Trump, who lost the national popular vote by several million in 2016 only because Hillary won big in New York and California.
People like Sen. Warren think that if we closed up the Electoral College — which was set up by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between big states and small states — it will put their splintered, increasingly leftist, and apparently suicidal party back in the White House in 2020.
Other Democrat presidential candidates who’ve never read the Constitution or believe we can simply get rid of the 12th Amendment over a weekend think it’s a great idea.
“Let’s get rid of the Electoral College” is a great applause line when a limousine socialist college professor like Warren throws it out to one of her Constitutionally challenged audiences on the campaign trail.
But since ending the Electoral College would take a Constitutional amendment ratified by three-fourths of the states, it will never happen — and she and the other desperate Democrats know it.
But what about that other radical idea to put Democrats back into power in D.C. — lowering the voting age to 16?
Democrats like it because they know they’d easily get the votes of most 16-year-olds, thanks to the diet of liberal political crap they’re fed every day by their teachers.
All Democrats have to do is keep promising the kids a fake future that includes free college, stricter gun control laws, and a socialist paradise of free health care and green jobs that don’t involve work.
They can also keep telling the kids scary stories about how the world is going to end in 12 years if the party of AOC doesn’t get control and begin outlawing fossil fuels, cows, and capitalism.
As for the idea of expanding the size of the Supreme Court from nine to 15, it’s an old Democrat Party trick that FDR tried in the 1930s.
It was brought out of mothballs this week by Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who’s probably right to think he’s just as qualified to be president as Kamala, Corey, and at least half of the other wannabes.
FDR tried to add as many as six friendly judges at the beginning of his second term because the Supreme Court’s conservative majority kept slapping down his New Deal laws for being what they were: unconstitutional overreaches of executive power.
Packing the Supreme Court with new judges who agree with you is not unconstitutional.
But the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 was such a transparent abuse of executive power that many Democrats in Congress joined with the Republican minority to oppose FDR’s planned power play.
Unfortunately for our country, FDR ultimately got his way when two justices changed their minds and voted to uphold the constitutionality of the Social Security Act and other New Deal legislation.
But his scheme to pack the high court backfired on him politically, which is something today’s desperate Democrats might want to remember.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://suindependent.com/electoral-college-democrats-voting-age/&media=https://suindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/democrats-electoral-college-voting-age.jpg&description="Let's get rid of the Electoral College" is a great applause line for Elizabeth Warren's Constitutionally challenged audiences on the campaign trail.){kind=link}
The best way I’ve found to explain the true purpose of the Electoral College is through the world series.
Let’s say the Yankees are playing the Red Sox, and in the first game the Red Sox win 7-0.
The Yankees win the next 5 games with a score of 1-0 in each game.
In the eyes of Lizzy Warren and friends, the Red Sox should have won because they scored more total points.
This simply isn’t the way it works. It’s too bad some people are so blinded by hatred and power that they are willing to change underlying principles to meet their needs. For a group that claims to want equality, they sure are selective about what equality really means, and who gets the majority portion of their equality.
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.
Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN).
Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”
Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill
In 2017, Saul Anuzis and Michael Steele, the former chairmen of the Michigan and national Republican parties, wrote that the National Popular Vote bill was “an idea whose time has come”.
On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote
In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.
In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.
In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill