Friday, December 23, 2016
Founders Brilliantly Designed The Electoral College Allowing Less Popular States A Voice In Choosing President.
Had votes from the liberal-infested states of California and New York not been counted in the 2016 general election, President-elect Donald Trump would have beaten failed Democrat challenger Hillary Clinton in the popular vote by 3 million votes.
But because they were counted, he lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, according to the Epoch Times, which obtained these numbers from a report issued by the Cook Political Report.
Note that Trump received 62,679,636 total votes, which was the most that a Republican presidential candidate had ever received in American history, as noted by Hot Air. Even former President George W. Bush, who was beloved by many Republicans, received fewer votes in his 2004 reelection bid.
Despite these facts, however, liberals were still kvetching about the election, claiming that Trump’s loss in the popular vote made his election illegitimate and arguing that the Electoral College should therefore be abolished.
“Conservative opponents of a direct vote say it would give an unfair edge to large, heavily Democratic cities and states,” The New York Times editorialized this week. “But why should the votes of Americans in California or New York count for less than those in Idaho or Texas?”
Here’s a quick math lesson for The Times: They don’t count less. The states get a larger number of electors because of their large populations.
The editorial board also forgot a couple of things. First, America is and has always been a representative republic, not a democracy. Moreover, the Founders purposely set America up like this to ensure every state’s voice would be heard — and to prevent mob rule.
Had the election been based on the popular vote, the highly populated states of California and New York would have effectively determined its outcome from the get-go and thus robbed power from less populated states such as Utah and North Carolina.
Would that be fair? No. And that was exactly the point — one that, sadly, has flown right over the heads of many liberals.
H/T U.K. Daily Mail
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about the fact that Trump would have crushed Clinton by 3 million votes in the popular vote had California and New York not been counted!
How do you think liberals will respond to this mind-blowing fact?