Recently, Hillary Clinton released her new book entitled “What Happened,” in an attempt to explain away her 2016 defeat with a list of ridiculous excuses. For most of us, no such explanation was necessary, and the answer to the question “what happened” is rather obvious: she lost.
Still, accepting defeat is not something liberals are willing to do quite yet. In the aftermath of the election, the left has done everything they can to cast doubt on the legitimate results of the election.
For months, liberal media pundits have obsessed over a Russian collusion conspiracy theory that has yet to be backed up by any hard evidence. Undeterred, they continue to make even the the most mundane issues a major controversy.
Of course, the original boogeyman pushed by the left was not the Russians or Donald Trump’s Twitter account, but the electoral college. As the dust settled after election day, it became clear that Clinton had won the popular vote. Alas, the long established rules that both sides were bound to play by was now a major national crisis. In order to “save democracy,” the electoral college had to be replaced.
While you might think that Democrats have since moved on from scapegoating the electoral college, you’d be sorely mistaken. Behind the scenes, liberals are working feverishly to upend the system Americans have known for over 200 years.
In fact, they are even taking their case to court.
From Fox News:
A liberal-led push to overhaul the Electoral College could be moving from the op-ed pages to the courtroom, as a Harvard professor who flirted with a dark-horse Democratic presidential bid last year vows litigation to change the system.
Criticism of the Electoral College was resurgent in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss. Clinton recently said she wants the system “eliminated.” The latest effort isn’t aimed at dismantling the structure entirely – but rather, the winner-take-all system used by 48 states in awarding electors, which ends up focusing presidential races on a handful of battlegrounds.
“With a winner-take-all, most of America is ignored,” professor Lawrence Lessig said in previewing his legal case – which, like any challenge to the Electoral College, faces a steep uphill climb.
Perhaps most amusing, the lawsuit alleges that the Constitutional system set up to decide our president is — get this — a violation of the Constitution:
Lessig, though, argues the system violates the 14th Amendment’s one-man-one-vote principle. Currently, all but two states award all electors to the winner of the state’s popular vote. Lessig said 24 people have volunteered to be plaintiffs, though he’s still deciding which states to focus on.
“We are looking for a Republican from a blue state whose vote never counts and a Democrat from a red state whose vote never counts,” he said.
Predictably, the left is none too fond of the fact that the electoral college allows states like Montana and the small towns that dot our country’s landscape to have a voice. After all, the more rural a voter is, the more likely they are to vote Republican. To them, elections should be decided by the State of California or New York City, which just so happen to be overwhelmingly liberal in their political persuasion.
Instead of wondering why they failed to win over the voters of rural Wisconsin, liberals are instead hoping to lock them out of the next election.
Thankfully, their efforts are doomed to fail in court.
[Note: This post was written by Michael Lee. Follow him on Twitter @UAMichaelLee]