Democrats are still furious that their brilliant, personable, impeccably honest and ethical Hilliary lost to that Awful Man, and they put the blame squarely where it belongs:  On the electoral-college system.  And to keep such an unfair, awful thing from ever happening again, Dems are pulling out all the stops to eliminate that system and replace it with the winner of the national popular vote.

Of course to do that they'd have to amend the Constitution, and it's hard to imagine states with small populations voting to commit suicide that way.  But before dismissing that possiblity, consider this:

Two days ago the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (Tom Perez) gave a lecture to law students at Indiana University, in which he said "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution."

Uh, Tom?  Would you kindly read Article II aloud for us?  Can you tell us what it means?

Article II, of course, specifies the details of the Electoral College--a mechanism created by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between smaller states and larger states, creating the system of indirect election of the president.

So why did Perez say the E.C. "is NOT a creation of the Constitution"?  Is he really unaware of what that document--once called the supreme law of the land--says?  Or is he merely trying to convince future attorneys that it doesn't mean what it says?  Perez has previously stated that President Donald Trump "didn’t win" the presidential election because Hilliary Clinton won the popular vote. 

It's one thing to bitch endlessly about a Constitutional provision you don't like.  It's quite another to claim that the president didn't win simply because Hilliary won the popular vote.  Interestingly, no professor at IU stood up and asked him if he really thinks the E.C. isn't set forth in the Constitution.  Similarly, the Democrat National Committee didn't respond to the same question.

After claiming the E.C. isn't a "creation of the Constitution" Perez went on to tell his audience of eager law students about a cunning, Democrat-contrived plan by which Dems hope to elect future presidents by the winner of the national popular vote, despite the Constitution's direct orders.  It's devious, and a century ago it wouldn't have had a chance of being ruled legal.  But now we've got so many corrupt, anti-Constitution Dem judges now that anything is possible.

The Constitution provides that the states may choose their electors on any basis they wish.  So what Perez and the Dems are pushing is to persuade Democrats in each state to pass a state law pledging to award their electoral votes NOT to the candidate that won their state, but to whoever wins the national popular vote.

"There's a national popular vote compact in which a number of states have passed a bill that says, we will allocate our...electoral votes to the person who wins the national popular vote once other states totaling 170 electoral votes do the same," Perez said. "I’m frankly proud to tell you that the first state to pass such a law was Maryland."

The main supporters of the plan put forward by Perez understand that its intent is to eliminate the electoral-college system created by the Constitution, not an argument that the system doesn’t exist. And of course they all understand that the cunning of the plan is that it would destroy a key Constitutional compromise without having to amend the Constitution itself.

As I said:  Cunning.

If you think the Dems aren't trying to destroy the electoral-college system you're dreaming.  The far-left website Slate has called the electoral-college system  "a democratically indefensible anachronism that dilutes minority votes while disproportionately amplifying whites votes."

Really?  Apparently it doesn't "dilute minority votes" at all, because you Democrats managed to elect Barack Hussein Obama.

Answer that one, you communist assholes.  You managed to elect your emperor, so apparently the electoral-college system can elect anyone, regardless of color or sealed records or fake birth certificate.

The Slate article coyly talks about this scheme as "probably our best hope of effectively nullifying the Electoral College."  Also they call it an "agreement among the states and the District of Columbia to render the Electoral College obsolete."

Aren't they just too, too clever?  We're not doing anything important, citizen.  Merely "effectively nullifying" something.  "Rendering it obsolete."  Nothing to get concerned about, citizen.  Trust us.