‘Disgruntled’ California Democrats target Electoral College, Zoe Lofgren presses for Constitutional Convention
On Tuesday, “disgruntled” Democrats held a forum to discuss the possibility of replacing the Electoral College.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) conceded that Democrats could not get rid of the Electoral College due to the way the United States Constitution is written.
“I don’t think we can sustain our American democracy by having the majority ruled by the minority. And so the question is how to fix this since the Constitution is written in such a way that it’s almost impossible to amend,” Lofgren said.
Lofgren went on to say she is open to a Constitutional Convention, “We are three states away from calling for a Constitutional Convention. It’s something I’ve always been opposed to, …. But I’ll say because, for the second time in sixteen years, people the American voters elected did not become president. Rational people, not the fringe, are now talking about whether states could be separated from the U.S., whether we should have a Constitutional Convention. And I think as time goes on that is apt to become more the case unless we here can figure an answer to preventing the majority from being ruled by the minority.”
The language Lofgren uses is aligned with the misrepresentation of the popular vote versus the electoral count and the outrage that Hillary Clinton earned such massive victories in liberal leaning states like New York, California or Massachusetts to warrant a popular count victory.
“Rational people, not the fringe, are now talking about whether states could be separated from the U.S” is insulting to every Texan who entertained the notion of succession during the Obama administration, a more legal pathway than other states, since her rhetoric has only arrived in defeat.
photo/ donkeyhotey
In 2013, a Huffington Post article, titled “Secession Movement: It is Neither Cute Nor Funny,” blamed the Texan movement on racism: “Let’s be clear that the secession movement is racist no matter how vigorously that may be denied. There would be no movement if a white man was sitting in the Oval Office.”
“Think how much better off we all would be if all those who thought so little of the United States that they wished to leave the Union were actually gone. Good riddance; we should actually encourage them. We can live without Texas. Our political discourse would return to the center with no anti-science, anti-intellectual, religiously intolerant extremists to skew the debate. Give them Texas; let the loony right create a concentration of crazy; let those who wish to create a Christian nation do so; let them create a state of intolerance in which all abortions are banned, Creation Science is taught in place of evolution and climate change is a liberal hoax. And then let us move on.”
The director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, Jon Carson, wrote in his response to those efforts that free and open debate was good for democracy, but also cited some of the legal arguments against secession, including Texas v. White, an 1869 Supreme Court ruling that found that individual states did not have a right to secede.
“Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States ‘in order to form a more perfect union’ through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government,” Carson wrote. “They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot — a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it.”
The answer is simple: we are all alike. We are hurt when we lose and we are nasty when we win. The message should be to NOT BE LIKE THIS. Don’t be sore losers or bad winners. Understanding, compromise and the movement of ideas creates an amazing REPUBLIC (NOT A DEMOCRACY) that we have enjoyed for over two centuries.
