Thread by @bansisharma

1. Electoral College Redux
This Damon Linker (@DamonLinker) piece is highly flawed and misleading. All the complaining about Wyoming having the same two senators allocation as California is misdirection. Let me explain how and why.
theweek.com/articles/79651…

2. First, let me agree with Damon Linker on one thing. Yes, the electors in the electoral college are just a decoration. The president in reality is elected by winning states and all electoral votes from any state just routinely fall into the lap of the winner in that state.

3. The liberal complaint against the allocation of two senators to each state is that it indirectly over-allocates electoral votes to smaller states, since the number of electoral votes awarded to each state equals the number of members of Congress from that state.

4. As Damon points out, even with the most skewed population distribution that might happen some 20+ years from now, states with one-third of the population could end up with 70% of the senate seats. This is what troubles Damon, Hillary and other kindred spirits a lot.

5. But don't be misled by that 70% statistic. Remember the number of electoral votes is the sum of the number of senators and House members, the latter being proportional to state population and thus being a much larger number.

6. So even with 70% senate representation from states with one-third the U.S. population, those smaller states will only have about 40% of the electoral votes. One-third population with 40% electoral votes and two-thirds population with 60% electoral votes -- is that so terrible?

7. Now remember, even that is the most skewed it is ever likely to get. Is it so terrible that we must change the Constitution to correct that teeny bit of skew which has many upsides too? I think not. Are liberals so dumb that they can't calculate that? I think not.

8. So what is all the brouhaha about? Well, it is about fooling the nation into agitating for "direct democracy" or specifically to agitate for electing the President by popular vote.

9. Damon goes to great lengths to fool the reader into thinking that election of the President by popular vote is only intended to address the problem of disproportionate senator allocation impacting the presidential election. But that's not the truth, now is it, Damon?

10. If that was the problem, we don't need to change the whole system to elect the president by popular vote. We could simply keep the current system, but change the number of electoral votes each state is awarded equal just the number of House members from the state. Period.

11. Why are Democrats not agitating for that simpler solution instead? Just don't take the senators into account when allocating the number of electoral votes to each state. Since number of House members allocated is proportional to the state population, problem solved.

12. Suggest that to call the liberal bluff. That is not the real problem that sticks in the craw for Damon, Hillary, et al. They want presidential election by popular vote because they want to eliminate state-by-state "winner take all" aspect of how electoral votes are counted.

13. Now you see their trickery. If electoral votes were allocated to each state based only on each states's population (i.e. if there were only 438 electoral votes instead of 538 electoral votes, thereby ignoring senators), Donald Trump would still have won in 2016 handily.

14. In other words, all the talk about senator allocation is obfuscation. What people like Damon and Hillary want is to change the rules so Democrats never have to muck about in places in the heartland, so Hillary never has to meet anyone in "the basket of deplorables."

The End

You need to know one more thing about liberals. Liberals really don't give a damn about the long term. All their positions are based solely on whatever will give them power NOW. That's why they subjected Judge Thomas to "high tech lynching." That's why Reid eliminated filibuster.