At a recent CNN town hall, Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has called for abolishing the Electoral College. Here is what she said: “My view is that every vote matters. And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”

The audience erupted with applause upon hearing Warren utter this—to use the word the President used—“strange” idea. Since Warren’s statement, other Democratic candidates have jumped on the bandwagon. For instance, failed Texas Senate candidate, Beto O’Rourke, said there is “a lot of wisdom” in getting rid of the Electoral College.

Why are Democrats all of a sudden opposed to the constitutional process by which we elect presidents? Their support for abolishing the Electoral College seems to have come out of nowhere.

When O’Rourke was asked about this issue, he was perhaps unintentionally honest enough to reveal the real reason Democrats have adopted this radical cause: “Because you had an election in 2016 where the loser got 3 million more votes than the victor!”

Indeed, it all goes back to the Democrats being sore losers. This is nothing less than a vindictive temper tantrum over Americans denying Queen Hillary her supposed birthright.

Democrats could legitimately win the presidency in other ways if they wanted to. For instance, they could come up with better ideas and policies that would actually benefit America. They could nominate less awful people who would appeal to voters in states they need to win. Instead, they’re proposing radical changes in an attempt to circumvent the constitution to get what they want.

“But wait,” you might say, “doesn’t it make sense to elect presidents according to the popular vote? Whoever gets the most votes should win, right?”

First of all, it’s rare for the winning presidential candidate to lose the popular vote. Usually the President wins both the Electoral College and the popular vote. And again, if Democrats had won in 2016, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Democrats are only proposing this because they think it will benefit them politically.

Second, while it’s understandable that people would be upset about the person who lost the popular vote becoming president, no matter how rare that is, the alternative proposal to abolish the Electoral College and elect presidents on the basis of the popular vote is much less desirable. Let me explain.

Because of the Electoral College, candidates must campaign all over the country and address the concerns of many different types of people, including people in rural areas and in smaller states. Abolishing the Electoral College removes the incentive for a candidate to win the support of such voters.

Here’s how Tara Ross explains it: “If winning were only about getting the most votes, a candidate might concentrate all of his efforts in the biggest cities or the biggest states. Why would that candidate care about what people in West Virginia or Iowa or Montana think?”

Another objection that is sometimes raised against the Electoral College is that it causes presidential elections to be determined only by the outcome of certain swing states. But again, as Tara Ross has explained, this is false. Why? Because “safe and swing states are constantly changing. California voted safely Republican as recently as 1988. Texas used to vote Democrat. Neither New Hampshire nor Virginia used to be swing states … No political party can ignore any state for too long without suffering the consequences. Every state, and therefore every voter in every state, is important.”

It simply doesn’t make sense to abolish the Electoral College. So why, then, are Democrats all of a sudden pushing this? Besides getting revenge for Queen Hillary, the Democratic Party simply doesn’t seem to actually care about the needs of Americans. They care only about power. Abolishing the Electoral College would take power away from smaller states in the middle of the country and give it all to other states with larger populations of Democrats. That’s all this is about.