Sen. McConnell Claims Electing The President By Popular Vote Is A ‘Genuine Threat To Our Country’

First let me ask this, are Republicans staging a contest to see who can say the stupidest things?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) attacked a proposal to switch to a national popular vote for presidential elections during a speech at the Heritage Foundation yesterday. McConnell and six Republican secretaries of state discussed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV), a proposed plan for using a popular vote in presidential elections. The NPV would guarantee whichever candidate wins the popular vote would also win the electoral college – preventing a repeat of the 2000 election when Al Gore won the most votes but still lost the presidency. It would do so by getting states to agree to collectively award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner, but the compact would only kick in once states with a majority of the electoral college sign on. Currently, eight states and the District of Columbia have joined the NPV, comprising 132 of the needed 270 electoral votes for the compact to take effect.
Rather than embracing the NPV as a way to solidify the Constitution’s guarantee of “one man, one vote,” McConnell lambasted the plan, calling it a “genuine threat to our country.” Though McConnell admitted that the notion of a popular presidential vote where the candidate who receives the most votes wins is “appealing,” he called the idea “absurd and dangerous.”


This is not the first time McConnell has expressed unease with elections and popular votes. In July, the Republican Leader took to the Senate floor to declare that we must rewrite the Constitution and add in an amendment permanently entrenching a Tea Party policy agenda because “elections” haven’t “worked.”
Awarding the presidency to the candidate who receives the most votes is an eminently reasonable and democratic position. McConnell’s suggestion — that ensuring the person who gets the most votes becomes president is a “threat to our country” — is not.

God knows that elections by majority vote have undermined democracy in every State in the Union. They've only elected governors that way for what -- 225 years or so??!! I'm sure the downfall of the States is imminent.

McConnell isn't alone. Here is an interesting discussion of the Electoral College.

http://mises.org/daily/545

McConnell isn't alone. Here is an interesting discussion of the Electoral College.

http://mises.org/daily/545 Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

good article, but it was written 11 years ago.

Has something changed in the history of the electoral college in the last 11 years?

Has something changed in the history of the electoral college in the last 11 years? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

no, but the article was written to address calls for the direct election of presidents resulting from the Gore/Bush election.

So that makes it irrelevant to this discussion how?

i never said it was irrelavant. i was making a point that it was an old article.

the liberal attack on the electoral college is based in either ignorance or detest of things american

its not the old saw "one man, one vote" its the protection of liberty, which is the greater value. One man, one vote is not the object of the Constitution, its the protection of liberty. liberals do not like liberty, never have, never will, unless its their liberty only to impose.

here's a post from 11-25-11 (dilbert may think it old):

Regardless of what one believes, the Bible says that God placed an angel to keep man from returning to the Garden of Eden....

why? because man was not perfect...

The founding fathers had that view of man...our imperfection. They established a constitution and a government, a republican form (not a democracy), with a system of checks and balances and of course the electoral college, to allow individual states to continue to have a voice, to protect the weak from the strong, to protect the individual from the
state, to protect liberty from the tyranny of the majority. the
one overriding, pervasive theme?....the protection of liberty.



opposed to this view, this foundational aspect of america, sits the liberal, the left, the communist, the progressive. the french revolution is one example but even better ...the old soviet union had at its core, the attempt at creating the perfect man, the soviet man, its society to culminate in the perfection of man. in their quest for perfect men, they had no qualms about theft or murder or any act deemed necessary. their mantra was theft; stealing from capitalists was their duty. of course it imploded, for man was imperfect and their rulers were mere men, murderous, greedy and vain.

the city of san francisco, sits on the edge of America, like a virus sits in one's computer, ready, working, steathily, ever moving to thwart and change America into its idea of perfection. they think they can develop a Teilhardian unity of man. all it takes is your destruction and their control. it is their religion and they are zealous.

the ows is just one instrument in this movement. we shall perfect man, by removing the imperfect men, by leveling everything. some simpletons just want their years of sloth and debt acquisition taken from them, debt, by the way, imposed on them by their own pedagogues. their instructors in vain idealism, who nevertheless aren't overly idealistic enough to not make sure they are well salaried and pensioned. Some, however, wish to control , for they know better, or they just want to rule or any other human reason but it all ends in diminished liberty.

they think that poverty and disease and strife can be cured by their control, for they are smart and caring, and, by the elimination of freedom and liberty, or if you resist, the elimination of you, all will be well.

while actually, the whole progress of man has come from liberty and freedom.

what is a greater societal value? freedom and liberty or equality of outcome?
__________________

the liberal attack on the electoral college is based in either ignorance or detest of things american

its not the old saw "one man, one vote" its the protection of liberty, which is the greater value. liberals do not like liberty, never have, never will, unless its their liberty only to impose.

here's a post from 11-25-11 (dilbert may think it old):

Regardless of what one believes, the Bible says that God placed an angel to keep man from returning to the Garden of Eden....

why? because man was not perfect...

The founding fathers had that view of man...our imperfection. They established a constitution and a government, a republican form (not a democracy), with a system of checks and balances and of course the electoral college, to allow individual states to continue to have a voice, to protect the weak from the strong, to protect the individual from the
state, to protect liberty from the tyranny of the majority. the
one overriding, pervasive theme?....the protection of liberty.



opposed to this view, this foundational aspect of america, sits the liberal, the left, the communist, the progressive. the french revolution is one example but even better ...the old soviet union had at its core, the attempt at creating the perfect man, the soviet man, its society to cuminate in the perfection of man. in their quest for perfect men, they had no qualms about theft or murder or any act deemed necessary. their mantra was theft; stealing from capitalists was their duty. of course it imploded, for man was imperfect and their rulers were mere men, murderous, greedy and vain.

the city of san francisco, sits on the edge of America, like a virus sits in one's computer, ready, working, steathily, ever moving to thwart and change America into its idea of perfection. they think they can develop a Teilhardian unity of man. all it takes is your destruction and their control. it is their religion and they are zealous.

the ows is just one instrument in this movement. we shall perfect man, by removing the imperfect men, by leveling everything. some simpletons just want their years of sloth and debt acquisition taken from them, debt, by the way, imposed on them by their own pedagogues. their instructors in vain idealism, who nevertheless aren't overly idealistic enough to not make sure they are well salaried and pensioned. Some, however, wish to control , for they know better, or they just want to rule or any other human reason but it all ends in diminished liberty.

they think that poverty and disease and strife can be cured by their control, for they are smart and caring, and, by the elimination of freedom and liberty, or if you resist, the elimination of you, all will be well.

while actually, the whole progress of man has come from liberty and freedom.

what is a greater societal value? freedom and liberty or equality of outcome?
__________________ Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

NG, nice post. it would have been better to link it to your post.

no its not old, its recent.

He's absolutely correct. The framers knew full well that a republic was a much more viable form of government than a democracy, and they were a lot sharper than the ones who followed with some of the more idiotic amendments like the 15th. Every step away from the republic is a step toward oblivion, the only form of government with a worst survival rate than a pure democracy is communism. Once the crowd can simply vote to give themselves more and more "free shit" it's all over but the crash and burn.

AT THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Sorry, Ben, we failed you.

God knows that elections by majority vote have undermined democracy in every State in the Union. They've only elected governors that way for what -- 225 years or so??!! I'm sure the downfall of the States is imminent. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

America is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic.

Just because the majority is in favor of something doesn't mean you're necessarily allowed to do it.

If you want to elect the president by popular vote, then we have to amend the constitution.

A popular vote election of the president would favor big cities and consequently, the Democrats; this is why the Democrats are always pushing for it.

I'm posting the following quote to illustrate the deadend of governing by democracy.



Tyler wrote the following about democracy long before our own had been tested.
He said: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always vote for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy and is followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:


From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependency;
From dependency back into bondage.

I believe Obama understands the sequence of events posted above and is deliberately trying to collapse the system. If he gets reelected, the currency will become worthless and we will end up with tyranny, the same way Germany got a dictator after their currency collapsed in the Weimar Republic.

The problem with direct election of the president is that it is just another end run around the basic principles that this nation was founded upon. Liberals and the big government types have been chipping away at the bed rock of our great nation. Power is now invested in Washington and not at the state and local level where the framers intended for power to rest. This erosion began when state legislatures were stripped of their power to elect Senators. The erosion of state's rights continued when Abraham Lincoln waged the Civil War. Some claim Lincoln to be the greatest president. I contend he is one of the worst because through him, power was invested more at the federal level than at the state level. This trend has continued throughout history and culminated with the unconstitutional health care act by Obama and the Dems in Congress. Hiding behind the utterly ridiculous claim that health care can be regulated under the Interstate Commerce Act is just one more example of how liberals want power consolidated in Washington. Enough is enough. It is time for this country to return to it's roots as a collection of 50 equal states-- each with their own way of dealing with issues. We could eliminate 60% of our debt right now if the federal government would just get out of the way of the states when it comes to social programs. We don't need an Education Dept at the federal level. We don't need a Health and Human Serviced Dept. We don't need HUD, the FCC or the EPA. The only thing the federal government should do is national defense, maintain a common currency, and conduct foreign relations on a macro-level. Everything else should be left up to the states. To be honest, I'm not proud of this country-- more precisley, I'm not proud of our so-called elected leaders. I find them to be bought and paid for be special interests. There is no real voice for the common American except for those like Ron and Rand Paul.