Justice Ginsburg: Yeah, I Would Support Changing The Electoral College

Matt Vespa
|
Posted: Feb 08, 2017 1:10 PM
Justice Ginsburg: Yeah, I Would Support Changing The Electoral College

Hillary Clinton ran for president—and she lost. But the Left still can’t let it go. Protests are erupting at Republican town hall events. You had progressives burning things, rioting, and pretty much acting like six-year-olds because they apparently have forgotten in the eight years of Obama’s presidency that liberals aren’t going to remain in power forever. Alas, the beauty of elections. There was a huge outcry to abolish or tweak the Electoral College because liberals think that whoever gets the most popular votes should be president, which also exposed that they also failed civics class.

The popular vote means nothing. Whoever wins the majority of the Electoral College is elected president of the United States. Trump won the majority of the states (30) and 304 electoral votes. He won. No one disputes that, not even Clinton’s campaign team. Yet, we saw endless thought pieces about how the Electoral College was antiquated (wrong) and had racist roots (even more wrong). There was also a crap argument that even though Congress, the White House, two-thirds of the governorships, and 69/99 of state legislatures were controlled by Republicans, the Democrats won or something.

At the very least, they use the Senate elections to try and undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s cabinet appointees or policy initiatives. Only about a third of the Senate senates were up this cycle, hardly an accurate gauge in the nonsensical quest to find some mathematical talking point to say we’re the majority even though were the minority. I would say that’s an alternative fact.

Well, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg weighed in on the Electoral College at Stanford University on Monday, saying that she’s for tweaking the institution—but noted that it would be very difficult (via The Hill):

There are some things I would like to change, one is the Electoral College,” she said late Monday at Stanford Law School in California, according to CNN.

“But that would require a constitutional amendment, and amending our Constitution is powerfully hard to do,” she added.

Ginsburg also lamented partisan divisions in Congress, which she said hurt the confirmation process for justices.

“I wish there was a way I could wave a magic wand and put back when people were respectful of each other and the Congress was working for the good of the country and not just along party lines,” she said.

“Someday there will be great people, great elected representatives who will say, ‘enough of this nonsense, let’s be the kind of legislature the United States should have,’” the 83-year-old judge added. "I hope that day will come when I’m still alive.”

Yet, she’s not alone. Reportedly, President Trump was open to ending the Electoral College, but was persuaded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell not to proceed due to the recount/run-off scenarios, which would be chaotic. He mentioned Florida’s recount in 2000, which took over a month. Imagine that applied to 50 states, each with separate election laws. Also, voter fraud would increase astronomically now that the contest is a zero-sum game, rigged against rural America since big, deep-blue states, like California, and urban areas would eat up most of the vote. That’s right, the people who think the heartland doesn’t have Internet would dominate national politics.

Yet, getting back to Ginsburg, efforts to change or repeal the Electoral College aren't going anywhere—and I think she knows it. There’s no way that two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures would sign off on it. So, take the liberal freak-outs over the Electoral College for what they are: tremendous entertainment.