Below is my column in The Hill on Kamala Harris and her “bad ideas” podcast. Harris was previously said to favor packing the Supreme Court, but the podcast appears to be part of the effort of many in the Democratic Party to condition voters to an emerging radical agenda on the left.
Here is the column:
On Thursday, former Vice President Kamala Harris posted a livestream on the “Win with Black Women” podcast to call for a “no bad idea brainstorm” for the Democratic Party. She used that pretense to “throw out there” the idea that Democrats should make radical constitutional and political changes as soon as they retake power.
That includes packing the Supreme Court, admitting Puerto Rico and D.C. as states and killing the Electoral College.
All of these items have been previously raised by liberal professors and pundits as a way to circumvent small-D democratic processes in order to guarantee power for the big-D Democrats for years to come.
It was a telling rationalization. The Democratic Party has become a party of moral and political relativism, embodied in the popular “by any means necessary” mantra used by many on the left today.
But there are bad ideas, just as there are bad people who want to win at any cost.
For some, Harris herself showed the existence of truly bad ideas by accepting the position as Biden’s Border Czar as roughly ten million people poured into the country. Another bad idea was her selection of Tim Walz as a running mate before his series of rake-steps.
Indeed, her sudden surprise nomination was a bad idea, one that cost $1.5 billion in just 15 weeks and led to one of her party’s most crushing losses in decades.
The worst idea, however, is to celebrate our 250th anniversary by destroying the very institutions and values that created the most successful and stable democracy in history.
In my book “Rage and the Republic,” I discuss lawyers and law professors who rationalize the trashing of the Constitution and our institutions to achieve their political goals. I debated one Harvard law professor who rattled off a list of Democratic proposals for our system, but then added that the left would need first to take control of the Supreme Court. It was an acknowledgment that the court would likely declare some or all of the proposals unconstitutional.
I previously wrote about the rise of “the new Jacobins” — influential figures who are seeking to dismantle our system after facing judicial and political setbacks. Even the dean of Berkeley Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote a book titled “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”
Now, leading Democrats such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have declared the Supreme Court “illegitimate” and called for a “massive” overhaul of both state and federal courts to make them submit to Democrats’ demands. This was Jeffries’ reaction to the Virginia Supreme Court’s rejection of Democrats’ effort to wipe out Republican representation in Virginia.
He is not the only one adding bad ideas to Harris’s wish list. Various politicians and pundits called for the sacking and packing of the Virginia Supreme Court. By lowering the mandatory age for retirement to 54, they would simply force out all of the current justices and replace them with rubber-stamp liberal appointees.
If this sack-and-pack scheme is not enough, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, reminded citizens that, under the state constitution, they could scrap the entire Virginia government over the refusal to let Democrats gerrymander the state. (Elias is infamous for his role in the secret funding of the Steele Dossier to launch the debunked Russian collusion scandal).
It did not matter that even a justice appointed by former Democratic governor Mark Warner found the move unconstitutional, or that Democratic figures like Gov. Abigail Spanberger believed that it could be overturned.
The X posting was only the latest effort to throw out some “bad ideas” to an increasingly radical movement on the left.
When I and others flagged Elias’s posting as alarming, he criticized me for taking him to task for merely quoting the state Constitution. It was typical of the “Who, me?” response of establishment figures when confronted for pandering to the most radical political elements in the Democratic Party.
It is like responding to an adverse World Trade Organization trade ruling by invoking Congress’s power to declare war. It is a rather extreme reaction.
Yet, it is all part of the effort to normalize extreme measures and condition American voters to fundamentally changing our system. Harris calls it her “expanded playbook.”
Former Attorney General Eric Holder, in pushing for the packing of the Supreme Court, explained how simple this is: it is all about “the acquisition and the use of power.”
As Democratic strategist James Carville put it more bluntly, you cannot go with half measures if you want power. You just have to say “f–k it … just do it.”
Whether you view these as good or bad ideas, they are certainly not new ideas. These are the same voices that have plagued our system for generations; the siren calls for unleashing forms of direct democracy and removing moderating influences in our system.
The Framers sought to create a system that would avoid the pattern of earlier democracies becoming tyrannies, including Athens. James Madison famously wrote, “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”
The Framers rejected more direct democratic systems to blunt the impulses and passions that destroyed other systems. They wanted to avoid democracy becoming what Benjamin Rush called a “mobocracy.”
The American Constitution was a rejection of the “bad ideas” that politicians (called demagogues in Ancient Greece) have historically used to marshal the power of the mob.
They did not want an “expanded playbook” designed to secure and retain power for one party. We were the first true Enlightenment Revolution based on the protections of rights derived not from the government but from God.
Now that was a good idea.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Mr. Turley, I finish Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” this weekend…. incredible and wish you more success. With the power coming to the democrats at the mid terms… the republican, the conservatives, the faith believers will lose everything. The dems will take us back to the biden era and a whole lot more… our country will no longer be ‘land of the free’… God Bless You and thanks for all that you do. Glenco
At this point, isn’t the democrat party as a whole–guilty of treason? They’re attempting to overthrow our form of government & encouraging the assassination of government officials! Sounds like treason to me!
Treason is a crime of citizens only. There are noncitizens involved. Yes, treason for the citizens.
Um, no.
Kamala is not a bad person – being a truly “bad” person requires some semblance of intelligence and she has demonstrated a total lack therof in the varioous offices she has held: Vice President, United States Senator, Attorney General of California and District Attorney in San Francisco. I can’t think of one intelligent statement she made that would support the existence of any intelligence. A second thought about Hakeem Jeffries who I believe is a lawyer. Maybe would be lawyers should be required to take an oath similar to physicians: FIRST DO NO HARM. Also maybe we should rename the Democat Party the American Marxist Part – that would be more accurate.
Oh i like renaming. Gop can be the pedo protection party PPP for short.
That would be Bill Clinton and the Democrat party.
Please dems, keep listening to ꓘamala and ꓘaЯЯville.
Unless you understand that they are Marxist-Leninist, you will not be able to understand what they’re doing. Oppressor-oppressed? Eliminate the nation-state? End Capitalism? Current values are only a subjective expression of the oppressor’s will? Straight out of the Marxist-Leninist playbook. Sounds extreme? Yes, but what other theory explains the Democratic Party’s positions at all levels?
tell me you dont know what a marxist-leninist is without saying it.
“For some, Harris herself showed the existence of truly bad ideas by accepting the position as Biden’s Border Czar as roughly ten million people poured into the country.”
As I understand it, the dems admit to 10 million. The right alleges closer to 20 million. How do we get the real number?
We do not know. And that is part of the problem – we can not even accurately guess +- 10M
Regardless, this is a nation of laws, and by law the correct number is Zero.
Admitting to 10M is admitting to either gross incompetence or lawlessness.
Turley is upset about the possibility that Democrats may “just do it” next time they have power.
But they have already done just that.
They did not enforce our laws regarding the border – why should we expect them to follow other laws ?
Vice Presidents are not in a position to reject assignments and projects given to them by the President so I think Professor Turley using accepting the border Czar position as an example of a bad idea is mistaken.
You are assuming that this assignment of “Border Czar” was a surprise to Kamala.
A better assumption is that she was not only consulted but that she originated the idea.
no vp has any power other than to break a tie. she wasnt responsible for what happened at all. She cant claim the good and you cant blame her for the bad beacuse she literally had no authority to do anything.
Also open borders. If you can get here come on in. Your welcome like my ancestors were
Trump’s super power is to cause so much TDS rage in the un-american that they expose themselves for voters to see.
Normal Americans are unaffected, just the ones that don’t like anything about America.
TDS actually begins with their losses to him, one man, so they focus all their rage to the point of ridiculousness.
I’m still waiting for Deniro to get it that Trump isn’t obsessed with him, it’s the other way around.
It’s really America Derangement Syndrome.
actually its getting religious morons to think hes religious. so dumb
Hahahahahahah Marc Elias lives in Turley’s head rent free for correctly labeling him “Mike Lindell with tenure.” All Elias did was quote the state’s constitution and Turley loses his freaking mind.
“Who me?”
Those of you on the left whig out at the text of the declaration of independence that is used to justify J6 or even actual insurrection.
Absolutely the people of VA have the right to completely replace their govenrment if they wish.
That is the people of VA – not the VA legislature.
If the people of VA wish to do so – they are free to do so. But the US constitution – and most states can not be changed by a simple majority for good reasons – we do not want the passions of the moment to drive tearing down and replacing centuries old institutions.
History, JS, DJT got a rep with senator signature to contest the validity of a states votes. SCOTUS rejected. Why? It had to be taken to congress to question, investigate? What’s the scoop with the history for dishonest state votes? J6 was a general protest?
Marc Elias must not be very bright if he cannot tell the difference between a business man, Mike Lindell, and a law professor, PT.
Yes, Elias pointed out how to undermine VA own Constitution to gain and maintain power.
“The worst idea”
-The Democrat Party
being freinds with epstien gotta be up there
Bill would disagree, Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender’s jet much more than previously known
“Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known
this isnt the gotcha you think it is. the problem with whataboutism is that by saying well what about… is actually an admission that yes it happened with my guy but what about yours. so glad you admit trump is a pedo, we got it you believe clinton is too. Again i didnt vote for a clinton. you knowingly voted for a pedo. thats on you oh and a rapist
Wrong.
I never said Trump was a pedo. I am just pointing out the facts Bill was a lot more friendly with Epstine as the evidence shows.
Now, show us where Trump was just as friendly or evidence of being a pedo or rapist.
“There are no stupid questions” is another good one. Then a lib asks a question and we are reminded that yes there are. . .
The California Governor’s race is an opportunity for moderate centrists to reverse the progressive onslaught of the past decade. I implore the President to keep his mouth shut and let this natural change take place. The last thing we need is him interposing himself (his narcissistic craving of attention and validation), as he tilted the Canadian election toward Mark Carney with his incessant trolling about the 51st state.
CA Dem candidates are all running against Trump. The best chance for Californian’s to elect a moderate Republican (Bianco, Hilton) will occur if they can maintain healthy independence from Trump. For example, a winning talking point for Steve Hilton when Trump’s endorsement is raised: “The term of office I’m seeking goes 2 years beyond Trump’s graceful retirement from politics”. That one sentence conveys so much meaning, evoking a future Republican Party no longer held in the vise grip of a narcissist’s personality cult.
That’s what CA voters want — unwinding the overreach of progressivism while avoiding Trump’s incoherent, impulsive oppo-policy assault. Somebody please tell Trump to keep his mouth shut and let normal politics work.
You just identified a “natural progression” ruining California and then pre-blamed Trump if it isn’t reversed. Trump is not the cause of this.
pbinca
While you are likely correct that Californians given the choice between Trump and say Porter – will pick Porter.
That is not true of the nation. Trump is president because however you paint Trump, the american people picked that over Harris (and previously clinton).
With respect to Canada – I suspect Trump wanted Carney.
I suspect the US – and Canada are in the long run better off with more idiotic progressive canadian rule.
Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.
With regard to California – I do not live in CA.
And I am not sure that 4 more years of bad progressive rule is not necescary to finally make californians choke on progressivism.
Either of the two likely republican choices would be improvements for California over any of the other choices.
But until California is actually ready to elect a Trump like person – they are still too enamoured of progressive nonsense.
A moderate Republican as a place holder until CA elects another left wing nut, is not an improvement for CA.
I disagree, JS. Canadians were pretty fed up in 2025 with the creepy nanny-state that Justin Trudeau built (remember him freezing the bank accounts of the trucker-protesters?). Undue Chinese influence in their politics.
Too much regulation (I mean, pronouns!…c’mon!)
The polls had Poivievre and the Conservatives ahead until Trump started with his innane 51st State troll jab. You realize how insulted ALL Canadians felt by that sophomoric put down, right? Our President made Secy. Rubio into a potted plant dripping with embarrassment. Trump is too often undisciplined and impulsive, routinely strengthening his opposition’s resolve without even being aware he’s doing it.
Of course, he was the better choice than Harris. What’s that got to do with CA Governor?
California is already changing if you care to notice. San Francisco voters got rid of its proggie Mayor, D.A. and School Board. Alameda County recalled its SJW D.A. who was letting black criminals out to reoffend. Swallwell is gone.
Pelosi is done. Newsom is done. Brecerra is the loyal party hack with zero rizz.
Repubs have a real chance, the first time since Schwarzenneger. But it has to be a Republican who gets along with Trump on some matters, and opposes him on others. The President can help CA Repubs at this juncture by
NOT making the vote about himself.
There’s 1 republican in the legislature? A governor can veto but there’s zero chance now or ever. Amtrak breaks down every few miles…
For Republicans, every accusation is a confession, and this post is more than enough to make a priest blush. To accuse Ds of wanting to destroy democratic institutions while remaining silent when the Rs are actually doing that is absurd.
“democratic institutions” such as?
Despite all the attempted destruction of AMERICAN institutions by Ds?
Please take your “democracy” somewhere else sally. It is not fit for our republic shores.
Examples? That would allow for some debate on your premise of R’s destroying institutions. A simple blanket statement that they are can’t be responded to with anything more than “no they’re not”.
What are Republican actively doing to destroy democratic institutions?
What institutions are Republicans destroying ?
We constantly hear that Trump is violating the law and constitution – yet that is not the final outcome of any court case – and most do not even have to get to the supreme court.
Trumps rhetoric is unusual, but his actions are fairly narrowly within the powers of the president as exercised by prior presidents democrats and republicans alike
Democrats talk about stacking the supreme court.
But republicans could do that now – they have the power but they are not doing so.
Contra your claim – republicans are not destroying institutions – that is exclusively democrats.
Trump has destroyed faith in many institutions:
• Juries, by claiming they decide verdicts based on political leanings (extremely rare, e.g. O.J.)
• The National Weather Bureau and NCAR, two science-based service organizations very well-managed, because they wouldn’t bend to “climate change is a hoax in order to control people”
• Civility, one of the biggest casualties of his ascent to power, which began with a deceptive, calculated fraud campaign about Pres. Obama’s birth
• Law enforcement norms, by pledging to end lawfare prosecutions but showing no restraint when he got back in charge
• Alliances and diplomacy, by signaling to traditional allies that they aren’t our concern, and we don’t need them, alternating with “we get along with everyone”
• PBS and NPR, setting out to destroy both because their news is slanted left (news is not the only thing produced)
• Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, by silencing these voices of freedom (instead of making corrections) because they veered into trans-DEI stuff under Biden
His problem is he claims to be a “builder” but he likes be dramatic and destroy, rather than improve. He panders to his negative emotions. That’s what a populist does…stoking negative emotions.
Obama is a fraud but the biggest fraud anywhere at anytime on every level, anon. Surprise 😲
Karl Marx introduced the concept of the ends justifying the means in his communist manifesto in 1848. It was later refreshed in the 1960’s by a Marx disciple, the Chicago based community organizer, Saul Alinsky.
Marx failed, Alinsky failed and so will this current effort.
The end justifies the means is a paraphrase of Niccolò Machiavelli, not Marx.
Marx failed, Alinsky failed … and yet those two are still a buzzword among liberals. Fail? Hardly.
I’m starting to notice the similarities between communism and TDS.
TDS is after all the democrat party platform now.
im starting to notice similairities between pedo protection and the gop
So what you are saying is liberals cannot learn from history.
and all these loco dems are reading the communist playbook looking for something that will bring about their lame revolution.
he did not your an idiot it was machiavelli. maybe you need a history lesson. oh wait your probaly conservative so yea you dont know history
if it sounds like a Fascist and Goose Steps like a Fascists….it is a FASCISTS
Time to START jailing democrats for their crimes…which are PLENTY!
Neville Chamberlain tried to be the Nice guy with German Fascists…it DOESN’T WORK!
Kamala Harris – she has nothing but BAD IDEAS. She was a Bad Idea for the DEMS but they wanted someone that they could control like Sleepy Joe. The usual cast of Left Wing DEMS, Jefferies & Co., Ambulance chasing Lawyer Elias, Obama the Great one? James Carvile – Cajun Clown, etc All BAD IDEAS for the country but profitable for them.
Look, forget the scholars for a second. What would the average guy in 1789 have thought about this? Not Madison, not Hamilton. The farmer. The tradesman. The veteran who just fought a war against exactly this kind of power grab. That person didn’t need a law degree to recognize a faction trying to kick out the referees and rewrite the rules mid-game. They built the whole system around stopping that. It was common sense then. The fact that we need credentialed experts to explain it to us now tells you everything about how far we’ve drifted.
. The fact that we need credentialed experts to explain it to us now … . Just like what you’re trying to pull off? Except you have no credentials or credibility.
OLLY has common sense as he points out. Something more than anything you will never have.
OLLY,
For the most part, well said.
Although I do not think we need credentialed experts to explain it to us. Watching Democrats having their hissy fit as their attempts to undermine the Constitution and state level Constitutions, various other shenanigans fail to stand up to the rule of law and by their words, we can see it.
Pretty sure there would have been a duel, a brawl, war. 😉 don’t spit your tabacci my way…
Founders opposed to the Electoral College:
1. James Madison (privately opposed the final version)
Madison helped design the early framework, but he opposed the Electoral College as it was ultimately adopted.
His objections:
It gave disproportionate power to small states
It entrenched slave‑state advantage through the 3/5 rule
It allowed state legislatures to control the method of choosing electors, which he thought was dangerous
Madison preferred a national popular vote or at least a system that reduced state‑level manipulation.
2. James Wilson (the most outspoken opponent)
Wilson — one of the most democratic‑minded Framers — explicitly argued for a national popular vote for president.
He called the Electoral College:
unnecessarily complex
anti‑majoritarian
a system that would “confound and mislead” the public
Wilson lost that fight, but he was the clearest voice against the Electoral College.
3. Gouverneur Morris
Morris, who literally wrote much of the Constitution’s final text, opposed the Electoral College and wanted:
direct election by the people
no intermediary body
no state‑level control over presidential selection
He warned that the Electoral College would empower faction, intrigue, and corruption.
4. George Mason
Mason distrusted the Electoral College because he believed:
electors would be too easily influenced
the House deciding elections would lead to “cabal, intrigue, and corruption”
foreign powers could manipulate the process
He predicted the system would fail frequently and throw elections into Congress.
5. Elbridge Gerry
Gerry opposed the Electoral College because he believed:
it was too complicated
it would not reflect the will of the people
it would encourage backroom deals
He preferred congressional selection (which had its own problems).
⭐ Founders Who Accepted It Reluctantly (Not Supporters)
Alexander Hamilton
Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68, but this was strategic, not heartfelt.
Privately, Hamilton preferred:
a strong executive
selected by a small, elite body
insulated from state politics
He supported the Electoral College because it was the only viable compromise, not because he thought it was ideal.
Benjamin Franklin
Franklin disliked anything that concentrated power in elites.
He didn’t mount a major fight, but he was not a supporter of the Electoral College and preferred more democratic mechanisms.
It seems Harris wasn’t in bad company.
Apparently and obviously, other “Founders” disagreed and prevailed. Your point?
My point is that several of the Founders opposed the Electoral College and considering it flawed isn’t a brand-new concept of the radical left but always existed. A secondary point if you read the specific reasons some of them were opposed was that many of their concerns came to pass.
BlackCon
I suppose you are fine with millions of illegals voting, stealing teaxpayer money and appearing in the census?
If millions of illegals actually were voting I’d have a problem. I have a problem with people stealing taxpayer money including when elected officials do it.
EB – I have a problem if people do not trust the election process.
And whether you like it or not – they clearly do not.
I have no idea whether you or Guventor mean millions of illegal aliens voting.
Though I am glad that you appear to recognize that there are some limits to voting.
The 2000 election was decided by about 180 votes in Florida.
The 2020 election was decided by less than 45,000 votes in GA, NV, and AZ
Large numbers of elections are now decided by very small numbers of votes.
One state senate seat in Indiana was recently decided by 3 votes,
A congressional seat in New Hampshire in 202 was decided by 27 votes.
We do not need MILLIONS of illegal votes to have dramatic impacts on our election results.
There was eveiodence of massive fraud in the CA recall election of Gavin Newsom.
But as I recall Newsom avoided recall by 4M votes.
Despite the evidence of fraud – no one challenged the election – why ?
Because there just was not 4M fraudulent votes. MAYBE MAYBE 1M at the very most, likely less than that.
But not 4M.
When elections are decided 60:30 – AND that ties with polls and expectations – we do not need really secure elections.
Elections are about securing the consent of the voters.
It does not matter how poorly they are conducted – if the outcome is correct and trusted by people.
It does not matter how well they are conducted – it the outcome is not trusted.
The purpose of election laws is not to prevent fraud – though hopefully they do prevent lots of fraud,
But to gain the trust of voters in the results.
If even 10% of voters do not trust the outcome of an election – that is a very serious problem.
The declaration of indepence justifies the violent overthrow of the existing government when it loses the trust of the people. The declaration also cautions against violent overthrow over a single instance of mistrust.
But each individual failure of government to secure the trust of the people leads inexorably to violence.
The purpose of election integrity laws is to assure the trust of the least trusting.
Given that increasingly large numbers of elected offices are being determined by tiny numbers of votes – it is increasingly important – not just to prevent large scale fraud but even small frauds.
We now know that in 2020 315,000 ballots in Fulton country were illegally certified.
That is two orders a magnitude greater than Biden’s margin of victory.
We know that GA did 3 different recanvasses and came up with 3 different results with a total variation of 25,000 votes in an election that was determined by 6,000 votes.
Does this prove Trump won GA ? No.
But it does prove that we have no idea what the real outcome of GA was.
And likely can never know.
That is what the consequences of conducting elections badly is.
NO ONE should trust the results in GA in 2020.
Frankly no one should trust the results in GA for any election until they resolve these problems.
And GA is not likely the only or worst offender.
The AZ audit where Trump lost by 11,000 votes found that 13,500 people voted almost 50,000 times.
Just to be clear – this does not mean that each of those people personally turned in 3+ ballots illegally.
That is the LEAST bad explanation.
The more likely explanation is that multiple third parties scanned the voting rolls for unlikely voters and manufactgured mailin votes for them – and that means there are potentially hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes in AZ.
I would note that also ties beautifully with the evidence that True the Vote gathered from GeoFencing Ballot boxes and reviewing security camera video – not just in AZ – but it 5 other states where they found massive ballot harvesting in 2020 – which is illegal everywhere except CA. There were between 800,000 and 2M mailin ballots harvested in the 2020 election – in Just 6 major cities.
Again does that prove Trump won ? No, but it proves the election was not conducted lawfully and that the results are not deserving of trust.
And that is what matters.
Not do people like the results, but should they be able to trust the results.
“The 2000 election was decided by about 180 votes in Florida.”
The 2000 election was decided when the Supreme Court stopped the recount which may have changed the outcome. One could correctly say that 5 Justices decided the 2000 election.
Your statement about 13,500 people casting 50,000 votes doesn’t appear to be true. If the Cyber Ninjas, Patrick Byrne, Seth Keshel or others have pushed a theory that doesn’t make it so.
The same goes for your other claims. Check your sources.
I’m curious, guyventner, why is it no matter the topic, you and others need to point out that I’m Black? You’re revealing yourselves.
You identify as black, no? as an enigma, no? You’re black, no? Why are we discussing your race? YOU brought it up. Why can’t you just post as anonymous like a normal person?
Are you anything else besides a black man? You’re posts say no, so I’m gonna assume you are likely CCP chinese as those guys never understand how they come across to normal average americans.
I post on any number of subjects having nothing to do with race. However, my race is all you can see. Why is that?
EB – if you do not wish the fact that you are black to be an issue – do not make it one.
When your non de plume is Enigma in black – you have made the fact that you are black an issue.
Though I would note that your pseudonym is false.
Thomas Sowell is an “engima in black”.
Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, Byron Donalds,
You are not an enigma at all. You are a pretty typical leftist black male.
I get it, a ‘bad idea really never dies’ and is worth pursing when one’s political ambitions are dashed upon the rocks (and particularly so when that same ‘one’ guided the boat onto the rocks!)
And the “secondary point” is not a valid ‘concern’ unless those “concerns” are specifically listed, put in the context of how the current system dealt with those “concerns” and contrasted them with how the proposed system would have achieved better results.
The specific concerns were listed and they haven’t been dealt with.
You fail to specifically detail which of those “concerns came to pass”, how they were dealt with, contrast them with historical counter proposal solutions or proposed solutions of the “no bad idea brainstorm”.
I’m sorry if I didn’t meet your demands. Think for yourself.
The expected reply, Kamala! You never fail to disappoint!
We have no idea what you are talking about bubble boy.
If you wish to disrupt the status quo the burden of proof is on you.
If you wish to infringe on peoples rights – the burden is on you and it is high.
My good friend mespo once said, “My answer is my answer.” I’m under no obligation to meet demands to reply to dozens of questions while being insulted. In the particular discussion, I provided the actual views of several of the Founders about the Electoral College. A couple people challenged an assertion and I gladly responded. Knowing in advance that some here won’t consider any proof sufficient. How much of my time should I waste on them. I come here with little hope of changing minds. I do often find good material to write about.
“and I gladly responded. “
And you responded with sophistry. If you leave out context, invariably your response will be wrong as proven in many replies.
Yes, the issue for democrats is that they are losing the support of the american people, and that should they by hook or crook manage tgo regain power, they need to use that power to assure that as they lose support again – because democrats in powerr universally fail, that they can rig the system to retain poqwe despite their unpopularity.
The left rants about Trump poll numbers – have you looked at your own ?
Barely into double digits.
People really hate you. Far more than Trump.
Democrats suck in the polls, the only reason they feel good about themselves is because Republicans suck so much more (in the polls).
EB – while I tend not to rely on your claimed facts – you have notoriously bought all kinds of lunatic claims – this easily could be another.
At the same time – all these men who supposed opposed the electoral college – signed the constitution and went on to help getting it ratified – the constitution took effect on may 29, 1790 when Rhode Island became the 9th state to ratify it. Ultimately all 50 states have ratified the constitution as it is – not as you wish.
You are free to attempt to amend the constitution to elect the president by national popular vote.
But without a constitutional amendment that will not happen.
Do you think you can get 3/4 of states to agree to that ?
I suspect there may well never be another Constitutional Amendment.
If you dispute any of my “claimed facts,” I welcome you to check them on your own rather than dismissing them out of hand.
BlackCon
you will have to TRY harder to be a FASCIST!
The Framers (Brearley Committee): The system was primarily crafted and recommended to the convention by the “Committee of Eleven” (also known as the Brearley Committee), which included delegates like James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, and James Wilson.
Alexander Hamilton: He was a vocal proponent of the system, strongly defending it in The Federalist Papers. He argued that the Electoral College would ensure the presidency was decided by “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,” keeping the process free from corruption and foreign interference.
Many of those who opposed the electoral college were from the most populous states such as NY, Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New Jersey and would be set to be advantaged by a popular vote mandate. The smaller states and their representatives favored the electoral college, hence the big state / small state conundrum. Seems to have worked though for 250 years.
Besides making constitutional changes require 3/4 of the states, big and little, which is quite a large leap.
You can’t have that conversation without mentioning that many of those smaller states were trying to protect slavery. Leaving that out is disingenuous.
You’re livin in the past man! You’re hung up on some democrat policy from the 1760’s man!
There was no Democratic Party in the 1760s, but don’t let that stop you.
Small States like Virginia ?
State populations 1790
Slave states
South Carolina 249K
Virginia 692K
Maryland 319K
North Carolina 394K
Georgia 83K
Non-slave states
Connecticut 238k
Delaware 60K
Masachusetts 378K
New Hampshire 142K
New Jersey 184K
New York 340K
Pennsylvania 434K
Rhode Island 68K
I do not think your small state argument flies – of all the slave states in 1790 – only Georgia was a “small state”
and Virginia was by far the largest state.
Enigma, your sophistry doesn’t get a pass by using an ‘all or nothing’ fallacy to declare a system illegitimate. Not only is your logic faulty, but your evidence is out of context. You paint these men as majoritarians when that was the furthest from their minds, for they deeply feared mob rule. The Electoral College was not an error, but a necessary compromise required to bind the thirteen sovereign states together.
I didn’t say it was an error, only that were those other than liberal leftists that had objections. As to the fact it was a compromise, the Electoral College and everything else in the Constitution was a compromise. If only you recognized that the institution that most of the compromises were about was slavery and how to allow and protect it.
Have you considered interning at the SPLC? You’re perfect for them guys.
Enigma, after being caught using sophistry, you move the goal post. No, our Electoral College (and Constitution) was not created to protect slavery. Slavery was already legal and protected under the Articles of Confederation; The Constitution and Electoral College, in specific were created in that fashion to limit and contain slavery’s political power since the South claimed blacks were non-citizens but wanted to use them as full persons to boost their vote. The battle was over whether or not the South should get the electoral power by counting slaves, capping the available population count at 3/5 of the enslaved population.
If you won’t accept that part of the Compromises in the Constitution and Electoral College were to protect slavery, I can’t help you. How about the clause that specifically prevented the end of the International Slave Trade for twenty years?
Enigma, as I stated earlier, the Articles of Confederation provided no end to the slave trade. The North tried to confine it physically and politically, which is precisely what you are complaining about. Do you know what the 20-year expiration date was that ended the slave trade? It was to choke off the supply of new slaves to help cause it to disappear.
As a true client of victimhood, you wish to blame all the provisions meant to limit slavery as another act to enhance it. You’re very wrong. The Constitution moved away from the custom of permitting slavery.
“Do you know what the 20-year expiration date was that ended the slave trade? It was to choke off the supply of new slaves to help cause it to disappear.”
Your ignorance and wishful thinking is shining through. Jefferson ended the International Slave Trade as a protectionist measure to increase the value of domestic-bred slaves. Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware had excess slaves as they had ruined their fields with tobacco. The overall demand slaves was stadily increasing with the use of the cotton gin. The slave population steadily increased after 1808 due to limited smuggling and the dramatic increase in slave births over every other demographic because of forced breeding and rape.
Enigma, you accuse others of not knowing what they are talking about, but you say: “Jefferson ended the International Slave Trade as a protectionist measure…”
You do not even know the timeline of what you bark out. The Constitution and that 20-year timeline was written in 1787. The Act was legislated 20 years later and started on January 1, 1808. The cotton gin wasn’t invented until 1793. What are you smoking? The cotton gin was invented six years after the Constitution was written, so such an increase in demand was not a factor in 1787. If it was, why did the Deep South oppose the measure? You are conflating things all over the timeline. I guess in your world, ignorance is bliss.
the hell it wasnt. goppers really dont know history
Why don’t you provide the history? You can’t and won’t because you are ignorant.
Is there is not one example which you might reveal? Or are you being an ‘enigma’? Pretty sure you don’t realize how transparent you are..
You’re welcome to take the examples I provided and think for yourself whether they had any merit. You wouldn’t accept anything from me, that’s why you need to do your own research.
Enigma, sophistry is what you bring to the table. The words of the Constitution constrain slavery physically and politically, hoping for an eventual end. Slavery before this time was the custom of the nation. Your Victimhood steers you in the wrong direction.
What in the Constitution suggest a hope for the eventual end. The possibility of an end was what Southern states feared most and why they seceded from the Union. Don’t give me any bull about state’s rights, read their individual Articles of Secession which make it clear they had no intention of ending slavery.
That was explained before. The Constituion was reversing the position of slavery from the Articles of Confederation where it was considered customary. The Constitution was containing slavery in 1787. In another post you screwed up the timeline and conflated different events over a 20 year period. Now, with your inclusion of the Civil War your conflation is so out of bounds that nothing you say is meaningful. Next you will bring up WW1 and Wilson’s actions toward blacks to prove things that never occurred.
Meyer, the Zionist zealot, accusing others of being steered in the wrong direction by their sense of victimhood is rich irony.
By the way, the Articles of Confederation were completely silent on slavery. The words slave or slavery are nowhere to be found.
Your statement that, “slavery was already legal and protected under the Articles of Confederation” is complete nonsense and nothing but sophistry.
And yet you accuse others of sophistry and playing the victim.
The very definition of irony and ignorance.
You are an idiot. I said the Articles of Confederation left slavery alone. That is why I said it was the custom of the time.
Anytime you wish to present reasons for Israel not to exist, spell it out. Dummies like you can’t argue the facts.
No, you didn’t say that the Articles of Confederation left slavery alone.
You explicitly stated, “slavery was already legal and protected under the Articles of Confederation”.
That is false.
As I said there is no mention of slavery in the Articles of Confederation, so how could the Articles possibly protect slavery.
There is a big difference between saying slavery was “left alone”, and saying it was “legal and protected”. You made both of these statements, but in your ignorance and zealotry you fail to realize that these statements have diametrically opposite meanings.
Pure sophistry.
If you want reasons for Israel not to exist, I would refer you to Neturei Karta.
https://nkusa.org
You remain an idiot. Slavery was left “alone” and thereby “protected” in the sense that it was not explicitly prohibited. In that way, the Framers also “protected” smoking or eating fatty foods simply by remaining silent.
Tell me what you want to say about Neturei Karta. They are not new to me. Their numbers are insignificant somewhere between 0.01-0.03%. Your significance is less than theirs.
There was no such thing as a “liberal leftists,” back then. If the founders were to see what today passes as a “liberal leftists,” (I would argue “illiberal leftist”) they would of likely said,
“WHAT THE F–K IS THAT!?!?!?!!”
like one half of the country is doing today.
Lots of people have objections to all kinds of things.
It is rare that something is 100% perfect.
All of the people you named as questioning the electoral college signed the constitution and voted for it and worked to ratify it.
The electoral college is not perfect – not then, not now.
It is just better than any alternative.
YOUR national popular vote has massive problems too.
It was rejected then.
In 1787 the members of the house of representatives were elected by popular vote.
Senators and presidents were elected by state legislatures.
We amended the constitution to change the election of senators.
Honestly popular election of senators was likely a mistake – but there were massive problems with fraud in legislative elections of senators.
States have changed their laws and constitutions to move the election of presidential electors from the legislature to the popular vote.
MOSTLY those changes were on net good.
But we are screwed up in that the oversight of presidential elections MUST rest with state legislatures.
Not state executives.
The constitution delegated election powers to state legislatures explicitly – NOT to the states themselves.
There is very good reason to have different processes for each federal office.
We probably should stagger presidential elections and congressional elections
But what I think we SHOULD do is relevant only if I can persuade people to change the law and constitution.
That is how this works.
Wilson “was the clearest voice against the Electoral College.”
BS.
He was the College’s chief architect. And it was he who, at the Constitutional Convention, proposed the establishment of that College.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania was one of the most intellectually forceful and democratic‑minded delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. His views on presidential selection — and the Electoral College that emerged from those debates — were rooted in his broader political philosophy: popular sovereignty, separation of powers, and direct accountability to the people.
Wilson was a leading advocate for a strong national government and a system in which political authority flowed upward from the people rather than downward from the states. This commitment shaped his early and consistent preference for direct election of the president. He believed the executive should be chosen by the people themselves, not by Congress, not by state legislatures, and not by intermediary bodies that diluted popular will.
During the early June debates, Wilson argued for a single executive chosen independently of the legislature, emphasizing that each branch must be insulated from the others not only in function but also in method of selection. His goal was to prevent legislative dominance and ensure that the president derived legitimacy directly from the electorate. In this sense, Wilson was one of the most democratic voices in the room — far more so than many of his contemporaries.
However, Wilson quickly confronted political reality. Delegates from smaller states, southern states, and those wary of mass democracy resisted direct election. As a result, Wilson proposed what became the Electoral College — not as his ideal solution, but as a compromise mechanism that preserved a national character for the presidency while accommodating political constraints. According to Mount Vernon’s historical summary, Wilson “successfully proposed a unitary executive elected through an electoral college system,” a design that helped secure the Constitution’s adoption.
Wilson bowed down to the slave states based on his view it was the only way to join. I don’t doubt he was correct.
Thanks for posting specific examples that i can research to determine the accuracy of your claims. You’ve given me stuff to look up.
We have the electoral college. Now. We have had it for 250 years. It is working as designed just fine. That would be at odds with Harris and the Democrat party. But they are the party that wants mobocracy. They want to ensure no one other party than them wins another election. They are totalitarians. They tells us this with their own words.
I agree with you that it is working just as designed, with all its flaws.
Enima, winner take all could matter. It’ll move to citizen count. No more padding, no more gerrymandering.
Good job gentlemen 😂
And yet the constitution has the electoral college – and I beleive every single person you listed ultimately voted for it.
As to some of their objections:
The constitution as a whole is “anti-majoritarian” – intentionally.
It is deliberately structured to make change require supermajorities.
Even in 1787 the drafters mostly understood that a national popular vote would ultimately lead to the presidency being determined by a few large cities – and that is even more true now.
The electoral college exists specifically to protect rural regions from political domination by the whims of urban voters.
The electoral college exists to assure that those who wish to be president must secure sufficient support from ALL americans – not just “the majority” – as YOU note it is deliberately anti-majoritarian.
Majority rule on all things is an injcredibly bad idea.
Apportionment should be citizens only then and now. There’s some smart people here who’ll explain it.
Now you’ve brought in illegals as your padding the count? Always cheats.
“Founders opposed to the Electoral College:” “It seems Harris wasn’t in bad company.”
Leftists are funny.
They routinely deride the Founders. (Fill in a derogatory epithet.)
Then when it satisfies a desire (in this case to jettison the electoral college), they lionize the Founders.
Democrats, be careful for what you desire. “End gerrymanding!” cried Abby Spunberger and the Virginia Democrats. “Oaky Doky” said Thomas, Alito et al “Here you go!”
Whereas November loomed as a Democratic victory for the control of the US House appears more and more as a night of sackcloth and ashes, and wailing and gnashing of teeth for the Blue.
With respect to Harris, no more fitting description of an individual is that often used by the esteemed Senator Kennedy of Louisiana. Not only has she yet to be tested negative for stupid, but is the reason why there are directions for use on a bottle of shampoo. That having been saidis also the reason why there’s a voting bloc out there which will support her.
Instead of winning with good candidates and popular ideas, Democrats rely on racism and cheating. Now, since they have been disallowed to draw Democrat stronghold districts based on skin color, Democrats threaten to blow up the system. Democrat Fascists are calling for mob rule, just in other terms. By Democrat logic, why not elminate the Senate? It’s not purely democratic, after all. Why not eliminate state lines and force all elections to be natonwide popular vote driven? Why not eliminate courts and allow the people to vote on every issue, regardless of state and federal laws and Constitutions? Democrats know they can use emotion to stir up crowds and gin up instant support for any schemes that sound good in a moment of fervor but which ultimately fail once passions cool down.
. The fact that we need credentialed experts to explain it to us now … . Just like what you’re trying to pull off? Except you have no credentials or credibility. … just like to hate you project?
Today’s special offer, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” marked down to $1.00. Today only folks.
ANON=LOSER
Why do libs lie so much?
You asked, so answer it. If you can.
$24.71 for hard back.
https://www.amazon.com/Rage-Republic-Unfinished-American-Revolution/dp/1668205025?tag=nypost-20&asc_refurl=https%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2026%2F01%2F07%2Fopinion%2Fthe-peril-of-mamdani-and-weavers-communist-college-kids-nyc-field-trip%2F&asc_source=web&ascsubtag=srctok-d1005d866b4c7831&btn_ref=srctok-d1005d866b4c7831
So, yes. You lie.
Ano
It’s all the libs have.
Dad, It is Monday morning and already you are raging. Please take a shower and look for a job today. The electric is gone and the water company is threatening. Granny says if you do not shape up she is going to stop lending you her cell phone for “job searches” since it appears all you do is go online to rage. Face it Dad, the government job is gone and likely never coming back no matter how much you rage.
Marked down to $16.00. Sorry for the typo, folks.
It is $16.99 for the Kindle version.