The Democrat, progressive left attacks the Constitution and the Republican, conservative right, supports it. That's it. That's all you need to know. There is ample evidence for this in recent years, pack the Supreme Court if they don't like Court decisions. Change Presidential candidates just before the election if they are not polling well, and many more. But, there was an article in the New York Times this weekend that made the point clearly. The New York Times' book critic Jennifer Szalai claimed that "The United States Constitution is in trouble" due to the fact that former President Trump was able to become president through the Electoral College. "Trump owes his political ascent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional," Szalai wrote. "After all, Trump became president in 2016 after losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College (Article II). He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court (Article III), two of whom were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population (Article I). Those three justices helped overturn Roe v. Wade, a reversal with which most Americans disagreed." "One of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be the country’s founding document," the Times writer added. This article was followwed today by one in the Washington Post, A failing grade for the electoral college. In this article the same partisan points are repeated. A relic of another time, the electoral college distorts the results of our presidential elections and thwarts the will of the people. As usual, the progressive writers attack the Electoral College for one simple reason, they want a pure democracy because they have the votes in specific pockets in the larger states. They want a pure democracy, which we have never had. We have a representative republic. Elon Musk slams New York Times writer for calling the Constitution 'dangerous' If the Constitution is not working for your partisan political needs, lets scrap it. Then if a new process doesn't work for your partisan political needs, scrap that one too. Keep making the changes needed to keep one party in power. Sound authoritarian? It should, because it is. That is all you need to know about your choice in November. A little research would inform Ms Szalai of the New York Times and Theodore Johnson of the Washington Post that the Constitution was written to block out tyranny, authoritarianism, and radical factions. They want those three areas to have increased access to power. The Electoral College was included for just those reasons. The Founders wanted to limit the most populous states from controlling voting among all the states and thus make smaller states votes useless. Just what a Democrat program called The National Popular Vote would do. The National Popular Vote would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It has been enacted into law by 17 states and DC with 209 electoral votes. It needs an additional 61 electoral votes to go into effect. States would give their electors over to whoever won the National Popular Vote. No matter how their citizens voted, their votes go to the national popular vote winner, controlled by California, New York and a few others. If enacted, this could represent a fundamental shift in how America’s elections are decided. And, create a perfect environment for tyranny, authoritarianism and radical factions to control the country. According to Maudlin Economics The US population is crammed into a handful of counties. In 1787 most all of the population in America was concentrated in New York, Boston and Virginia. In order to have all people throughout the country to have equal opportunity to participate the Founders envisioned a Constitutional Republic, and a Democracy, a 'mixed' republic, where decisions are made locally, and federally. The Electoral College was envisioned as a tool to make a representative democracy more fair and united. Without it today, our country would be run by coastal elites in LA, Chicago, NY and a few other big cities around the country. Progressives support this because they realize that is where they live. Just like in 1787, this would create a pure democracy, but a poor and disunited America. We don't need more disunity. Stop the Democrat push to destroy the Constitution. Keep America a free and Constitutional Republic.