There’s a playbook the left reaches for every time they lose an election. Don’t reflect. Don’t recalibrate. Don’t bother asking why voters rejected your message. Just blame the system. Declare the rules rigged. Then demand that the very institutions holding this republic together be gutted and reassembled to guarantee your side never loses again. It’s lazy, it’s predictable, and it’s genuinely corrosive.
The target rotates depending on which constitutional guardrail most recently got in the way. Supreme Court rules against you? Pack it with friendly judges. Senate won’t wave through your agenda? Kill the filibuster. Lose a presidential election by a wide margin? Obviously, the problem isn’t the candidate who couldn’t close the deal. It’s the Constitution. It’s always the Constitution.
From The Post Millennial:
Former Vice President Kamala Harris suggested that the US should consider eliminating the Electoral College, following her defeat to President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.
Harris made the remarks during an appearance on a podcast hosted by Don Lemon. During the interview, Lemon referenced a recent conversation with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna, who argued that his party should expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices if they regain control of the White House and Congress. Harris agreed that Democrats should “absolutely” explore the idea, claiming that the Supreme Court has done things to “destroy” constitutional principles.
So there it is. A former vice president who lost a presidential election — and not by a hair — now wants to scrap one of the most foundational mechanisms in American governance. Donald Trump won 312 electoral votes to her 226. That alone is a drubbing. But here’s the detail that shreds the entire argument to confetti: Harris also lost the national popular vote by more than two million ballots, trailing Trump by roughly 1.5 percentage points.
The standard Democratic grievance against the Electoral College has always hinged on the possibility that a president can win the office while losing the popular vote — as happened when Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016 despite earning fewer total votes. That talking point doesn’t apply here. Not even a little. Harris lost on every scoreboard available. Newsweek’s Josh Hammer nailed the absurdity, calling her position “deeply anti-Democratic, anti-Republican, anti-Constitutional” and adding — with evident relish — that she has “no shame, no shame whatsoever.”
Hard to argue with that assessment.
The Founders knew what they were doing
The Electoral College wasn’t some hasty compromise scribbled on a napkin in Philadelphia. It was a deliberate architectural choice. The Framers designed it so that a president would need broad support across a diverse patchwork of states — not merely the enthusiasm of a few overcrowded metro areas. Strip it away, and presidential campaigns begin and end in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Rural communities, small towns, entire swaths of the heartland become politically irrelevant. Just scenery between fundraisers.
This is federalism doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. The same principle that grants Wyoming and California equal footing in the Senate ensures the presidency can’t be captured by running up margins in a handful of zip codes. The Electoral College demands coalition-building. That’s not a flaw. That’s the whole point.
The bigger play
What makes Harris’s comments particularly revealing is the company they keep. In that same conversation, she endorsed expanding the Supreme Court, agreed the Court has “destroyed” constitutional principles, and nodded along as Lemon warned that America is drifting toward “Christian nationalism.” She called for “some real shaking up” of “the rules and the structure.” Read that again. A woman who swore an oath to defend the Constitution is openly musing about overhauling its architecture because her side came up short.
This isn’t a one-off gripe about the Electoral College. It’s a comprehensive campaign against every institutional check that constrains progressive ambition. If a guardrail slows you down, rip it out.
Here’s the good news. Abolishing the Electoral College requires a constitutional amendment — two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures. The Founders didn’t merely design a brilliant system of governance. They made it extraordinarily resistant to the whims of politicians who’d rather rewrite the rules than earn the votes. Nearly 250 years later, that foresight has never looked sharper.
Key Takeaways
- Harris lost both the Electoral College and the popular vote, demolishing her own rationale for abolition.
- The Electoral College safeguards smaller states from being overpowered by a few major cities.
- In one interview, Harris backed both court packing and scrapping the Electoral College — exposing a broader agenda.
- The constitutional amendment process ensures no defeated politician can easily dismantle what the Founders built.
Sources: The Post Millennial, Sky News
The post Kamala Harris Lost the Popular Vote Too — Now She Wants to Abolish the Electoral College appeared first on Patriot Journal.
