David Harsanyi had a great piece in The Federalist Tuesday explaining why it’s not necessary, as so many Democrats now claim, to “fix” the broken Electoral College, the Supreme Court, and the filibuster. No, maybe it’s the Democrats’ agenda that needs repair.
Hey, Democrats, The System Doesn’t Need To Be ’Fixed’ Every Time You Lose An Election https://t.co/GQQmJzHRpl
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) July 3, 2018
We’ve seen it, from Ezra Klein suddenly proposing a way to “fix” the Supreme Court to Ian Millhiser tweeting #AbolishSCOTUS.
If you’re under the impression that the system exists merely to facilitate your partisan agenda, it’s not surprising that you also believe it’s “broken” every time things don’t go your way. This is why so many Democrats argue that we should “fix” the Electoral College when they lose a presidential election and “fix” the filibuster when they run the Senate and now “fix” the Supreme Court when they don’t run the Senate.
That drew out The Week’s Damon Linker, who thought it was a winning argument to bring up the popular vote again:
Gee, I wonder if you would be arguing the same thing to angry reformers on your own side if the Republicans had just lost the presidency after winning the popular vote by 3 million.
Actually no, I don't wonder. https://t.co/mXKY3cC8zz
— Damon Linker (@DamonLinker) July 3, 2018
It's because you're not an intellectually curious person. https://t.co/t45fCMu2Uh
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) July 3, 2018
No, it's because you and I both know there is zero chance you'd be lecturing your own side about how they just have to accept that the system is rigged in such a way that Democrats win the presidency and majorities in Congress while failing to win the popular vote.
— Damon Linker (@DamonLinker) July 3, 2018
Recommended
Ah, they’d “just have to accept that the system is rigged.” Come on, man, it’s been a year and a half.
Constitutional order = "rigged" https://t.co/QWcLUtkdkT
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) July 3, 2018
How do you "rig" a compromise that was openly and knowingly agreed to over 200 years ago and thereby convince a variety of different states to unite? https://t.co/FZHCjqw98l
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) July 4, 2018
I distinctly remember my 3rd grade teacher (Catholic school) telling us that in the United States, there is no national election to elect a president and that it happened on a state by state basis.
Maybe the first step is to stop pretending there's a "popular vote." https://t.co/xlLwfZFsrz
— RBe (@RBPundit) July 3, 2018
How dense does one have to be to understand that we don’t have a single national election, but rather 50 state elections? Flip that system and campaigns would have been very different.
But facts get in the way of fake moral preening, so let’s ignore them…
— Will Collier (@willcollier) July 3, 2018
https://twitter.com/ProfDBernstein/status/1014169724568195072
https://twitter.com/Lundqvistador/status/1014243594708738048
What is the "popular vote"?
Every state has different criteria for registration, voting process, hours precincts are open, procedures for verifying one is a voter, etc., etc.
And who do you want Donald Trump to appoint to be head of the new agency that regulates elections?
— AgainstTrumpDude (@TheAmishDude) July 3, 2018
In other words, you're just upset because you didn't win. Why don't you just come out and say that?
— J.G. Alt (@nycconservative) July 3, 2018
Donald Trump won the majority of the Electoral College which determines the Presidency. The Constitution was designed to put that power in the hands of the states. Sounds like you are mad Hillary sucked as a candidate.
— Zapp Branigans Brain (@JohnMulkey) July 4, 2018
https://twitter.com/EF517_V3/status/1014201369132224512
Nonsense.
There is no "win the popular vote". You mean "had the highest ballot count", which is very specifically NOT how we elect Presidents, by design.If "popular vote" had been the GOAL, both campaigns would have been conducted differently.
— The Department of No (@SantasTavern) July 4, 2018
Damon, please compare presidential elections, where the rules are set out well in advance and known to everyone, to Democratic primaries, where the rules change constantly (even when followed) to favor the nomenklatura's candidate.
— I am he whom thou shouldst follow (@BartlettFred) July 4, 2018
If you’re worried about a rigged system, talk to Bernie Sanders.
You're going to have to learn to stop lecturing and wagging your arrogant finger at the American electorate. You'll have to persuade with policies that make sense to the people of this country. Look at the map. It's a majority red for Trump, & 2020 will be overwhelming for you.
— RabbitHoleRedux (@everSoTweetly4u) July 3, 2018
I’m old enough to remember how Hillary said Donald should accept the results of the election. He did.
— ngrealy (@ngrealy) July 4, 2018
Related:
Ezra Klein recommends 'fix' for SCOTUS that for SOME reason libs weren't pushing during the Obama years https://t.co/SHL9gMwvJ4
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) June 28, 2018
Join the conversation as a VIP Member