Thread: Electorial College Nullification

American Suicide: A Permanent Solution to a Temporary Trump Problem

Blowing up the Electoral College will have consequences the Left refuses to foresee.

May 24, 2019
By Steven Kessler

A common refrain concerning suicide is that it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Suicide is a drastic and permanent solution to a situation that in all likelihood will pass.
Amid the fervor of anti-Trump hysteria, there are now 15 states that have either passed legislation or are attempting to pass legislation giving their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the presidential election (1). These moves no doubt are aimed specifically at defeating President Trump in the upcoming contest.
The problem with these moves is that they are a permanent solution to the Left's temporary Trump problem. While these legislative acts are understood in the present as an effort to beat Trump in the next election, the authors of these bills fail to understand that the move may have long-term consequences that could come back to hurt them. As Edmund Burke once said, "Wise men will apply their remedies to vices, not to names; to the causes of evil which are permanent, not to the occasional organs by which they act, and the transitory modes in which they appear" (2).
Long-term legislation designed to fight a temporary issue that has no long-term possibilities is a mistake.
James Madison recognized and attempted to mitigate this line of fallacious reasoning. He understood that sometimes, our emotions in the short term will get the best of us and bring about our own demise. In Federalist 63, he forewarned:

Such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. So there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. (3)

Madison and Burke shared an understanding that man's unruly passions and appetites too often blind our rational faculties and encourage rash and potentially damaging decisions. In Federalist 10, Madison articulated the idea:

The public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. (4)

Madison feared something he referred to as the "tyranny of the majority." This is the idea that might makes right, that the larger parties can gang up on the smaller ones and impose their will, morality being irrelevant to the will of the masses. Madison echoed this important thought in Federalist 51 when he proclaimed, "It is of great importance that a republic not only guard the society against the oppression of its rules, but to guard one part of the society against the injustices of the other part" (5) Madison was fearful that "[i]f a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure" (6).
This is the thrust of the electoral system in the first place. The Electoral College exists to prevent the many from ganging up on the few. In Federalist 10, Madison discussed the differences between a democracy and a republic. Among the differences is that republics have representatives who are delegated by the citizens to vote, whereas in a democracy, the citizens themselves vote directly. These delegates are necessary because they act as a check and a restraint on unruly passions and appetites. Madison reiterated this idea in Federalist 51, where he said, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place oblige it to control itself" (7). Madison understood that men need restraints included among their rights and freedoms.
Edmund Burke understood the need for men to restrain themselves as well. He said:

Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves; and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights. (8

Burke, as well as Publius, understood human nature. Buried not so deep down are our unruly passions and appetites. Yes, human beings need a way to protect themselves from outside forces like foreign invaders and angry mobs, but they also need a way to protect themselves from themselves.
When we remove the restraints on our passions and appetites, they run amok. This is why, in their infinite wisdom, the founding fathers chose to make our government not a democracy, but a republic. As John Adams once warned, forebodingly:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. ... Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never. (9)

By altering their electoral process, liberal states are giving in to their unruly passions and appetites, fueled by their hatred of President Trump. It is only a matter of time before other states, legislators, and people find ways to do likewise.

---

1. Del Real, J., & Turkewitz, J. (2019, May 22). Should the electoral college be eliminated? 15 States are are trying to make it obsolete. The New York Times. Retrieved from: American Suicide: a permanent solution to a temporary Trump problem
2. Burke, E. (1790). Reflections on the revolution in France.
3. Publius. (1788. The Federalist Papers.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Burke, E .(1790). Reflections on the revolution in France.
9. Adams, J. (2016). The Works of John Adams Vol. 6: Defence of the Constitution IV, Discourses on Davila (Annotated). New York, NY: Jazybee Verlaag.

---

1. Del Real, J., & Turkewitz, J. (2019, May 22). Should the electoral college be eliminated? 15 States are are trying to make it obsolete. The New York Times. Retrieved from: American Suicide: a permanent solution to a temporary Trump problem2. Burke, E. (1790). Reflections on the revolution in France.3. Publius. (1788. The Federalist Papers.4. Ibid.5. Ibid.6. Ibid.7. Ibid.8. Burke, E .(1790). Reflections on the revolution in France.9. Adams, J. (2016). The Works of John Adams Vol. 6: Defence of the Constitution IV, Discourses on Davila (Annotated). New York, NY: Jazybee Verlaag.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...#ixzz5osYLKrUn
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Democrats’ National Popular Vote Scheme

Is a devious plan in gear for Hillary's 2020 presidential run?

May 27, 2019
Lloyd Billingsley



Former First Lady Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election of 2016, and the Democrat’s defeat at the hands of Donald Trump was the biggest story in the world. In September of 2017, Clinton went on record that the electoral college helped Donald Trump win the presidency and told CNN, “I think it needs to be eliminated. I’d like to see us move beyond it.” The proclamation did not get as much traction as her defeat, but the 2016 loser wasn’t done.
“I win the coast, I win, you know, Illinois and Minnesota, places like that,” proclaimed Clinton in a March, 2018 speech in Mumbai, India. “So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward.” Clinton was on record that eliminating the electoral college was a move ahead, so by implication without that, “arcane election body,” as CNN put it, the progressive Democrat would win in a landslide.
Establishment media have been slow to track Democrat efforts to eliminate or weaken the electoral college. Fortunately, Tara Ross has been keeping watch for the Daily Signal.
In Nevada last week, the state senate approved National Popular Vote legislation. The NPV would render the electoral college irrelevant by requiring electors to vote for the national vote-winner instead of the candidate capturing the most votes in their states. Ross finds the basic structure of the NPV to be dishonest.
The Constitution provides that America’s state-by-state presidential election system cannot be changed without the consent of three-quarters ( 38 ) of the states. The NPV, Ross notes, “seeks an end run around this process. It wants states to sign a simple interstate compact instead.”
In that deal, states agree to give their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome within a state’s borders. The compact kicks in when states holding 270 electors have signed on. As Ross notes, that would be enough to win the presidency, and Ross finds trickery afoot in the NPV ranks.
In Minnesota, legislators concealed the NPV compact in an elections omnibus bill, and when that failed they stuck it in an appropriations measure. Hearings on the NPV have been hastily scheduled, making it difficult for supporters of the electoral college to testify. Supporters of the electoral college have also been excluded from allegedly “educational” sessions on the NPV compact.

By Ross’s count, a full 14 states plus the District of Columbia have signed on, and these states hold 189 electors. If Nevada’s Democrat governor Steve Sisolak signs the state senate bill, that brings the total to 195, only 75 electors short of 270. If Maine and Oregon approve the compact, Ross notes, “National Popular Vote will be only 64 electors short of its goal.” The NPV “relies on the state-based aspects of the system when convenient, but then switches to reliance on a national tally when that’s convenient.” So NPV wants to have it both ways.
Ross finds the NPV dishonest, deceptive, and infantile, like a kid who takes his football and goes home. “You don’t change the rules of the game just because you lost,” Ross explains. “Instead, you work on your weaknesses, improving so you can win next time.” NPV is a flat rejection of that course by the Democrats who, instead of developing coherent policy, are determined to topple Trump any way they can. And as Ross finds California making noises about keeping Trump’s name off the ballot in the Golden State.
NPV critics are right that the scheme would concentrate power in states like California and New York with the largest population centers. As Nevada assemblyman Jim Wheeler noted, with a national popular vote, why would candidates “even bother coming here.” Wheeler voted no on NPV “because I don’t want Nevada to be a flyover state.” Mr. Wheeler thus restates the purpose of the electoral college, to prevent a candidate from becoming president of the entire country by winning only a few populous states.
As Tara Ross recognizes, if Hillary Clinton had won the electoral college in 2016, none of this would be happening. And if Hillary Clinton had won, nobody would know about Midyear Exam, Crossfire Hurricane, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and the rest of the Clinton coup clan.
Meanwhile, last Friday in Houston, Hillary Clinton delivered a fiery speech blasting President Trump as “running scared” and the “very real constitutional crisis that this president has put us in.” As Dom Calicchio of Fox News explained, that “may have sounded like a campaign speech to some listeners.”
And some political observers “have suggested that Clinton could make a third bid for the presidency in 2020 if none of the more than 20 Democrats currently in the running emerges as a clear threat to deny Trump a second term.”
So the surging National Popular Vote may be gearing up for a new Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. As 2020 approaches, voters and legislators in all states have plenty to ponder.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273...yd-billingsley

WE got invaded for the votes !

Wreck the Electoral College, Destroy the Country

The Founders' scheme to produce compromise between competing factions was never more needed than now when the country is divided in a way that it has not been seen since the Civil War.

June 6, 2019

By David Horowitz

While you were sleeping, the Democrats (abetted by some deviant Republicans) have been working on a plan that would destroy the diversity of the American political system and bring the nation to the brink of civil war. The plan is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and tens of millions of dollars have already been spent over several decades trying to implement it. Fourteen blue states and the District of Columbia have already joined the Compact, which means they are 70% on the way to making their proposal the law of the land.
The Democrats’ plan is designed to eliminate the influence of the Electoral College in choosing the nation’s president, no doubt because while Hillary won the popular vote she failed win necessary votes in the Electoral College. Eliminating the influence of the Electoral College would end the diversity now embodied in the federal system with its division of powers between Washington and the fifty states. The fact that a party which presents itself as a defender of diversity should be leading the charge to eliminate the nation’s most powerful source of diversity should be all that is required to understand the threat their agenda poses to what has been the nation’s constitutional way of life for 232 years.
The Electoral College and the division of powers are features of the Constitution. But the National Popular Vote movement does not propose to amend the Constitution because it doesn’t have the votes to do that. Instead, in the name of “democracy,” it proposes to circumvent the Constitution and its requirement of large national majorities for amending what has been the fundamental law of the land. Think how Orwellian that is, and how concerning it should be for anyone believing the Founders created the most practical, realistic, democratic, diverse and successful polity the world has ever seen.

This is how the Democrats’ circumvention of the Constitution and its provision for an Electoral College would work. Instead of abolishing the College, which would require the support of two-thirds of the states, they are hoping to put together a coalition of states representing 270 electoral votes that would agree to award all their votes to whoever wins the national vote. In other words, if the popular vote is won by 10 votes, every state in the Compact would award 100% of their votes to that party, even if a majority of the voters in their state voted against them.
The bottom line (and goal) of this devious plan is to eliminate the influence of rural voters or “Middle America” and create an electoral lock for the large urban population centers, e.g., California and New York, which would then decide the direction of the country.
Currently the Electoral College forces candidates to campaign in states they might otherwise ignore, and thus forces them to compete for diverse constituencies, and therefore to compromise and moderate their positions. It was designed by the Founders to move the country to the center and to prevent an overzealous majority from tyrannizing the minority.
Consider the practical implications of this radical plan to remove an institution that has stabilized our political life for more than 200 years. The urban centers of America, which would become dominant under the plan, are also the centers of America’s crime problems and gun homicides, its intractable poverty, its failed public schools and political corruption. Do we really want to replicate for all America the failed welfare policies that have created a permanent underclass in cities like Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Baltimore?
Or consider California, a one-party state whose government has defied federal law and proclaimed itself a sanctuary for illegal migrants. What will be the consequences for an already deeply divided nation of having an open-borders policy imposed by leftist states led by California and New York on Middle American states who are already fiercely opposed to flooding the country with millions of illegal aliens whom no government agency has vetted? lf New York has legalized the killing of babies already born, how will that go down in states already banning abortions of babies with fetal heartbeats? All the blue states pushing this agenda are fans of the Green New Deal which focuses on a problem -- global warming -- that most of the country doesn’t consider urgent, calls for crushing new taxes to finance new social giveaways while programs like Medicare and Social Security are already on the brink of bankruptcy. Or consider the Green plan to remove 250 million gasoline-driven automobiles within ten years and replace them with electric cars. If an incredibly costly and unsettling confiscation scheme like this is imposed on the rest of the country, what can we reasonably expect as a reaction?
The Founders' scheme to produce compromise between competing factions and to put checks and balances on radical adventures was never more needed than now, when the country is divided in a way that it has not been seen since the Civil War. But apparently this is the perfect time for an out-of-touch and increasingly out-of-control Democratic Party to undermine the constitutional foundations of the nation, push a divisive agenda, and move the nation towards a one-party state.

David Horowitz is the author of the newly published book Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...e_country.html

Why senators who lobby for eliminating the Electoral College should worry

Imagine if the "equality" principles Democrat senators scream about for the Electoral College were applied to the Senate.

June 16, 2019
By Phil D'Agostino

Recently, there has been renewed activism to eliminate the Electoral College. The argument over its need to exist seems to be almost perennial. I say almost, because it really gets made only when Democrats lose elections. The problem is that the arguments they make are specious and their premises fallacious, and senators who support this move undermine their own standing in the Senate.
If the Electoral College were to be abolished, either through Democrat collusion among certain states or a constitutional amendment (which would never happen), this would effectively put an end to federalism. There would no longer be a logical need for or a way to protect the interests of any state. The point of a state governor or legislature would seem archaic and a throwback to the founding. States themselves would be mere markings on the map, while large metropolitan areas would become the new centers of power, with a handful of mayors becoming the new American lords. These metropolitan areas would then likely compete for power and create coalitions, further dividing the USA into city-states like Italy of the 1700s.
Some have a problem understanding that we are not only not a democracy, but not really a republic, either...not for the people. Our republicanism rests with the idea of representing the states and the people. Treaties are approved by the states through their representatives in the Senate, for example. Presidents, who preside over the corporation or federation of states, are not elected by the people; they are elected by the states. The size of each state's population is part of the calculation, but it's the state that is electing the president, not the people at large.
"But that was then. Today, we are a democracy, and the people should speak louder than the states, and so the 'popular vote' should count more!" If we were to do just a bit of mind-bending and apply this across the board to all the nooks and crannies of our government, it would then certainly apply to the Senate, for it, too, doesn't represent the people as it is structured now. It represents the states. So, applying that same concept to the voting value of any one senator versus another, it seems that a senator from a large state like California or Texas would certainly have more to say about an issue than a senator from say, Vermont.
If we use the same argument that the vapid empty suits and would-be presidents use to press their case, we would want to be sure that the 100 senators' votes would represent the popular vote. I suggest the following.
If we take the USA's population to be about 324 million, we now have a basis for a little simple math. Let's begin with the value of one senator from the least populated state and use it as our basis for a single vote. The least populated state is Wyoming. It has about 580,000 people. Since there are two senators, we divide by two to get about 290,000 as the base count for one vote for a senator. So we would say each senator from Wyoming votes with the value of one vote in the Senate, which is also approximately the same for Vermont. Texas, on the other hand, has more than 28 million residents, so each of its senators would have the vote value of 49 times the value of a vote from Vermont or Wyoming. A vote by Ted Cruz, for example, would count 49 times that of Bernie Sanders. Each of N.C.'s senators, my state's Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, would cast about 18 votes each...or 18 times the vote value as Mr. Sanders and almost twice the vote value as Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar. Oh, wow...and both Dianne Feinstein's and Kamala Harris's votes would count 68 times as much as Mr. Bernie's one little ol' vote. Even Dick Durbin's vote would count 22 times as much as Bernie's and less than half as much as Ted Cruz's.
The point is simple. The Electoral College is a brilliant solution for protecting the rights of each state in the Senate while accounting for the differences in population in the House of Representatives. To abolish it, either literally or effectively through collusion, is to completely change not just the way we vote for the president, but the entire structure of the federal government of the United States of America.

Recently, there has been renewed activism to eliminate the Electoral College. The argument over its need to exist seems to be almost perennial. I say almost, because it really gets made only when Democrats lose elections. The problem is that the arguments they make are specious and their premises fallacious, and senators who support this move undermine their own standing in the Senate.
If the Electoral College were to be abolished, either through Democrat collusion among certain states or a constitutional amendment (which would never happen), this would effectively put an end to federalism. There would no longer be a logical need for or a way to protect the interests of any state. The point of a state governor or legislature would seem archaic and a throwback to the founding. States themselves would be mere markings on the map, while large metropolitan areas would become the new centers of power, with a handful of mayors becoming the new American lords. These metropolitan areas would then likely compete for power and create coalitions, further dividing the USA into city-states like Italy of the 1700s.
Some have a problem understanding that we are not only not a democracy, but not really a republic, either...not for the people. Our republicanism rests with the idea of representing the states and the people. Treaties are approved by the states through their representatives in the Senate, for example. Presidents, who preside over the corporation or federation of states, are not elected by the people; they are elected by the states. The size of each state's population is part of the calculation, but it's the state that is electing the president, not the people at large.
"But that was then. Today, we are a democracy, and the people should speak louder than the states, and so the 'popular vote' should count more!" If we were to do just a bit of mind-bending and apply this across the board to all the nooks and crannies of our government, it would then certainly apply to the Senate, for it, too, doesn't represent the people as it is structured now. It represents the states. So, applying that same concept to the voting value of any one senator versus another, it seems that a senator from a large state like California or Texas would certainly have more to say about an issue than a senator from say, Vermont.
If we use the same argument that the vapid empty suits and would-be presidents use to press their case, we would want to be sure that the 100 senators' votes would represent the popular vote. I suggest the following.If we take the USA's population to be about 324 million, we now have a basis for a little simple math. Let's begin with the value of one senator from the least populated state and use it as our basis for a single vote. The least populated state is Wyoming. It has about 580,000 people. Since there are two senators, we divide by two to get about 290,000 as the base count for one vote for a senator. So we would say each senator from Wyoming votes with the value of one vote in the Senate, which is also approximately the same for Vermont. Texas, on the other hand, has more than 28 million residents, so each of its senators would have the vote value of 49 times the value of a vote from Vermont or Wyoming. A vote by Ted Cruz, for example, would count 49 times that of Bernie Sanders. Each of N.C.'s senators, my state's Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, would cast about 18 votes each...or 18 times the vote value as Mr. Sanders and almost twice the vote value as Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar. Oh, wow...and both Dianne Feinstein's and Kamala Harris's votes would count 68 times as much as Mr. Bernie's one little ol' vote. Even Dick Durbin's vote would count 22 times as much as Bernie's and less than half as much as Ted Cruz's.
The point is simple. The Electoral College is a brilliant solution for protecting the rights of each state in the Senate while accounting for the differences in population in the House of Representatives. To abolish it, either literally or effectively through collusion, is to completely change not just the way we vote for the president, but the entire structure of the federal government of the United States of America.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...uld_worry.html

Liberals' National Popular Vote Scheme Is Unconstitutional and Dangerous

The Electoral College is only part of the genius of the system our founders created to select a president. Scrapping it could destroy the United States.

June 21, 2019

By Brian S. Messenger

As of now, fourteen states have passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which attempts to eliminate the Electoral College as set forth in the United States Constitution. There have been many good articles written about the legality of interstate compacts to achieve the desired National Popular Vote goals. The author does not need to rehash all of those problems but believes that there are three additional ways that the NPVIC is both unconstitutional and dangerous.Constitutional Flaw #1: Non-Republican Form of Government

Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution says in part that "[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." The United States is a constitutional republic, where people elect their senators and representatives at the national level. At the state level, this is copied by every state except for Nebraska, which has a unique unicameral Legislature. A Republican form of government, by its definition, means that people elect representatives to represent them in running the government. This is done so that the people are not encumbered with the daily operations and voting to run the state or federal government.
A fundamental problem with the NPVIC is that it is inherently not a republican form of government for a specific state to select that state's Electors. Once a state Legislature decides to ask its citizens their preference through a popular vote, there must be a rational basis as to how the vote of the state's citizens is used to select that state's electors. It is not rational that the people's decision could be overruled by the votes of citizens of unrelated states. The following comparison is between two states in the NPVIC who are at the extremes of the Popular Vote Range for the 2016 election.
Vermont has three electoral votes in our existing system and cast 315,067 votes for president in 2016. This constituted 0.23% of the total votes in the nation. Under the NPVIC, Vermont will give other states 99.77% of the power to select its state's electors for president instead of maintaining the 100% control it presently has. Presently, there is a total pool of 538 electors, and 0.23% constitutes 1.2 electors. Vermont has irrationally thrown away its automatic control of three Electoral Votes for an effective control of 1.2 electoral votes.
At the other extreme is the state of California, which has 55 electoral votes in the present system. In the 2016 presidential election, there were 14,181,595 votes cast for president in California, which constituted 10.4% of the nation's total votes. California will give other states 89.6% of the power to select its state's electors for president instead of maintaining the 100% control it presently has. California has traded 55 electoral votes for an effective 56 electoral votes. At least California's decision would result in a higher number of effective electoral votes for the State, but it would still hand 89.6% of the decision to other states.
Legislatures of small states are committing a form of legislative malpractice by joining the NPVIC. The NPVIC is the latest in a 250-year history of schemes where the populous states are trying to bully and dominate the small states in the country. Under the guise of the perceived unfairness of specific presidential election outcomes, the large states are trying to fool the small states into giving up the finely balanced power they were guaranteed when they joined the United States. In addition, as different states implement different rules for voting, all other states would suffer the corruption of the national popular vote by sanctuary states. Those states allow non-citizens to vote in some elections and/or make it likely that errors will result in ineligible people voting in presidential elections.
Constitutional Flaw #2: Popular Vote Coercion
In 1824 (the 10th presidential election in U.S. history), there were four candidates. More importantly, there were many ways that states selected their electoral votes. In the 1824 election, the states of Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont did not have any popular votes for president. At that time, these states had a total of 71 electoral votes out of a total of 261. These states used various approaches to apportion their electors in the manner they felt best. For instance, New York had electors vote for the following candidates: Andrew Jackson (1), John Quincy Adams (26), Henry Clay (4), and William Crawford (5).
States have significant flexibility in choosing their electors. A state could have strong antiwar conscientious objector feelings and decide that it is morally wrong to select the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. In this case, the Legislature could devise a random process to select electors, or select none at all, so as not to trample on the feelings of their citizens. Another state could believe strongly in astrology and think birth sign is the most important factor in determining a commander in chief. Its Legislature could apportion electors using a formula based on the birth signs of the candidates. Though the author hopes these seem extreme to the reader, it could be argued that they have a rational basis from the perspective of their state legislatures.
Many states have used methods other than the popular vote to select their presidential electors in our nation's history. The NPVIC would force states to hold popular votes for president or lose power within our constitutional republic. This coercion would occur since unless states held a popular vote, and their votes were added into the national total, they would lose power relative to the states in the NPVIC. In the year 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court re-highlighted the right of state legislatures to select electors through various means in Bush v. Gore. These approaches included having the state legislatures take back the ability to choose electors from the people.
Constitutional Flaw #3: Removal of Critical Safety Mechanism
In the last 13 presidential elections, there have been two where a third-party candidate received more than 10% of the votes: 1968-Wallace (13.5%) and 1992-Perot (18.9%). There were an additional two presidential elections where a third-party candidate received more than 5% of the vote: 1980-Anderson (6.6%) and 1996-Perot (8.4%). In addition to the earlier described 1824 election, the 1860 election in the lead-up to the Civil War had four major candidates. In the 1860 Election, the percentages of the popular vote were as follows: Lincoln (39.8%), Douglas (29.5%), Breckinridge (18.1%), and Bell (12.6%). The electoral vote percentages that showed popularity by State were very different: Lincoln (180), Douglas (12), Breckinridge (72), and Bell (39). The electoral votes show that even though Douglas had almost 30% of the national popular vote, he was the least preferred candidate when states selected their electors.
As the number of candidates for election increases, the likelihood of having an extreme candidate receive the most popular votes goes up dramatically. Germany held a federal election in November of 1932, and the results were as follows: National Socialist German Workers Party (33.1%), Social Democratic Party of Germany (20.4%), Communist Party (16.9%), Centre Party (11.9%), and the German National People's Party (8.3%). If a fifth major candidate had run for president in the United States in 1824 or 1860, the percentages could have appeared similar. If the reader hasn't figured it out yet, the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party was Adolf Hitler. Even though fewer than one third of all German voters selected the National Socialist German Workers Party, the NPVIC approach would have automatically made Adolf Hitler president with no safety mechanism.
The Electoral College is only part of the genius of the system our founders created to select a president. There is a second step involved if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. This has happened twice (1800 and 1824), but the 1824 case is the more illustrative. When no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the United States House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote to choose among the top three recipients of electoral votes, as specified by the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1824, Andrew Jackson had the most popular votes, and the most electoral votes, but they were not a majority.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson was a political outsider who was eyed with distrust in Washington. When the Election of 1824 went to the U.S. House of Representatives, the states were allowed to identify the best compromise candidate they could find from the top three electoral vote recipients. The U.S. House voted: John Quincy Adams (13), Andrew Jackson (7), and William Crawford (4). John Quincy Adams, the son of our country's second president, was elected president by the House of Representatives in 1824. In spite of losing the 1824 election in the House of Representatives, Andrew Jackson came back to win the presidency outright in the Electoral College in 1828 and 1832, and he is honored on the $20 bill.
Conclusion
In the 13 presidential elections that the author can remember, he has felt emotions ranging from being thrilled, being happy, being worried, and being disgusted with the results. Since we live in a great country, where honest Americans can have different views, the author is sure that many people felt differently. Unfortunately, the fact that someone doesn't like who wins specific elections is no excuse for trying to dramatically change the genius of our presidential election system. This paper shows how the NPVIC would not only be unconstitutional in three key ways, but would potentially be dangerous to our nation.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...dangerous.html

that's the whole idea

usatoday.com

Rural Americans would be serfs if we abolished the Electoral College

The Electoral College has come under fire in recent years. The Founders shared some of the same concerns about it that are still discussed today, but ultimately, they realized its lasting merit.

http://bit.ly/2wVRSHX