After the Presidential election took place, Donald Trump was declared the winner. However there was a tremendous amount of controversy with the results. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had won the popular vote, but she lost in a landslide in the Electoral College race.
Anyone who has taken a government course knows that it’s the Electoral College that determines the winner of the presidential election. Unfortunately either a vast amount of people either forgot that information, or they just couldn’t stand the thought of Trump as president.
There were several notable actions that took place aimed at solely changing the election results. Some people asked for a recount in some states, while others demanded that the Electoral College system be abolished completely. Instead, the winner of the popular vote would be crowned the winner of the election.
It’s that latter option that has been gaining traction. A state lawmaker Friday introduced a bill that would have the winner of the popular vote become the next leader of the country. Should this legislation gain enough traction, there could be a rallying cry for it to get approved nationally.
Assemblyman Nelson Araujo, D-Las Vegas, introduced assembly Bill 274. If passed, it would enact the “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.” As it states, the new way of electing the leader of the free world would be through the popular vote.
The bill would force the electors to vote for the president and the vice president who win the national popular vote. If this were enacted during last year’s election, Hillary Clinton would have become the new president because she won the popular vote.
The bills provisions would officially become effective on the date that the states have enough electoral votes would constitute a majority in the nation. There are 538 Electoral College votes in the country, so as soon as this bill receives 270 electoral votes, it would be enacted.
As the time of this article, the bill has already been enacted by 11 jurisdictions containing 165 electoral votes. This is already 61 percent of the 270 needed to activate the legislation. It’s a disturbing thought to have.
As stated earlier, there was a huge discussion on the “true” winner of the 2016 Presidential election. The Democrats complained that Hillary received more votes than Trump in terms of the popular vote. However, as directed by the Constitution of the United States, the winner of the election would gain at least 270 electoral votes.
The reason that it is set up like this is so that the less-populated states can have a voice in the election. States like Wyoming, Iowa, Kansas and Montana don’t come close to the population total of states like Illinois, New York and California. By going to a popular vote system, those voices in less populated states would essentially be shut out.
Going to a popular vote means that it would be the giant cities that make all the decisions in electing the next president. Cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City and Chicago would basically determine the outcome of the election every single time.
While Democrats are all for that option, because those cities are progressively liberal, it would silence a vast majority of the United States. The Electoral College is necessary because it gives EVERY state a voice of their own. Should they be silenced just because they don’t agree with what the big cities are thinking?
Going purely on the popular vote would make sure that those smaller states would never vote again. How are little cities supposed to compete with the likes of LA, San Francisco and Chicago when some of their populations are higher than the population of some states?
According to the Democrats, they are just supposed to go with what the rest of the country is thinking, By rest of the country, they mean the largest cities that have progressive liberal ideas that were shared by Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama.
This bill has to get shot down immediately. Should it gain enough traction, the “democracy” in the United States would cease to exist. How is it a democracy when half the country is shunned?
As stated before, the Democrats have done what they could to change the rules in any way they could. This included creating an official petition to change the outcome of the Electoral College. Their idea was since Hillary won the popular vote, then the Electoral College voters should vote with how the country wanted. Thankfully, it failed.
The sad part was that right after the election, there were some states that were doing what they could to give Hillary the presidency. Maryland was refusing the Electoral College results and devoting their votes to Hillary Clinton. The fear at the time was that more states were going to follow and then-President-elect Trump would have lost out on the presidency.
Share this article to show that some states are getting serious with replacing the Electoral College. As more and more states pledge their Electoral Votes to this bill, it’s inching closer to the 270 mark that would see it enacted. This is something that cannot happen, unless people are okay with the big cities electing the nation’s leader every four years.