Progressives trying to rig Electoral collage

Good day all. This bit of news came out last week, and I’m just now getting to it. When we vote for the President, we actually vote for Electors in each state, who then vote for the president. Each state has one “Elector” per members of congress. (House and Senate) When you watch the election returns on the Presidential race, you see how the talking heads are always referring to how many electoral votes a candidate has won.

Generally, when a candidate wins a state, he or she wins all the electoral votes available in that state. There are 2 exceptions, Nebraska and Maine. I’m not going into a lesson on how the Electoral collage works. You can read the details on Wikipedia and elsewhere. One of the reasons for the existence of the Electoral collage was to protect the rights of the small states and rural voters. This has generally been a major headache to the Progressive Liberal Fascist Democrats, (PLFD), who generally control the big cities.

Now the “Blue States” are looking at neutralizing the advantages of the Red States and rural voters. Here are the details from the Washington Times:

The fondest dream of the modern Democrat is to neutralize the votes of the yokels in Peoria and put important decisions in the hands of sophisticates in places like San Francisco and Manhattan. The modern Democrats took a step closer to realizing their ambition last week when New York joined nine other liberal states with laws to undermine the Electoral College.

Blue states have been rushing to sign up for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So far, the list includes — in addition to New York — California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. All have agreed to allocate electoral votes according to the popular vote.

By persuading states with a combined 270 electoral votes to approve the compact, the winner of the national popular vote would be guaranteed enough electoral votes to win the presidency. If, for example, Hillary Clinton runs for president and wins a majority of votes in New York, but her opponent — let’s say Ted Cruz, just for fun — wins the popular vote nationwide, New York would award its electoral votes to Mr. Cruz, anyway, because he would have won the national popular vote.

Do you see what a dangerous idea this is? The PLFD’s goal is to end state sovereignty and institute a full blown top down control from Washington. This has been their goal for over 100 years, since the Wilson administration. (Some might say the Theodore Roosevelt Administration)

The Electoral College is as relevant today as it was in 1789. The Founders realized the danger of subjecting fundamental rights to the whim of the majority, so they devised a system that protects smaller rural states (like Oklahoma). Each state is apportioned a number of electors based on population, as expressed in the number of its members in Congress, and the political parties nominate electors who are expected, but not required, to cast their votes for that party’s presidential candidate.

In the modern era, this system ensures political candidates can’t ignore smaller states in their quest for the magic 270 electoral votes. The alternative now promoted would encourage presidential candidates to focus exclusively on the big cities in the big states: California, Texas, New York, Massachusetts, Florida and Illinois. No candidate would ever waste his time in New Hampshire, or in Kansas or Montana (or Oklahoma). Residents of the flyover states could read about it in the newspapers.

And it would get worse. Consider the 2000 election. George Bush won the electoral vote although Gore won the popular vote. Under this system being pushed, we would have had President Gore when Al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon and killed 3000 Americans. We can guess what Gore would have done.

Nothing.

He would have blamed Israel, Global Warming, and kowtowed towards Mecca. Then he would have ordered everyone to ride bicycles, raised taxes on energy companies and shut down all oil and gas exploration and production in the United States. Now I was late in developing Bush Derangement Syndrome, not coming down with it until about 2006. He was a disaster domestically, pretending to be a Constitutional Conservative, but showing that he was slightly to the right of Nancy Pelosi. While he did come close to winning the war on Terror and securing a true victory in Iraq, (Which was promptly thrown away by Obama), he took way to long to do it and made so many mistakes, we will be paying for them for decades. All I can say is, Gore would have been worse.

The popular-vote movement was revived in 2000 after Al Gore won 500,000 more votes for president than George W. Bush, but Mr. Bush put together 271 electoral votes, just enough to win. A group of sore losers formed the National Popular Vote, funded by several wealthy and liberal businessmen, to shutter the Electoral College. They were joined by left-wing groups such as Common Cause, which seeks to eliminate procedural safeguards to citizens’ rights, such as the Senate filibuster.

Not one of these groups considers the Constitution to be in force any longer. Common Cause has worked to destroy individual rights and free speech for decades. I’ve said it before and I will say it again. Their goal is to end the republican form of democracy we now have and institute a single party rule by the elites.

It’s foolish to change the rules of the game to gain a short-term partisan advantage. California has gone blue in the past six presidential elections, but before that it produced Ronald Reagan, and was reliably red until 1988. Even New York went for the Gipper in 1980 and 1984. Political winds are fickle, and can change the landscape quickly.

I agree. Changing the rules for short term gain never ends well.

It’s more important to uphold the Founders’ vision, of restraining the impulse toward pure democracy. Upon leaving Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman what form of government had the Founders bequeathed, “a republic or a monarchy?” The wise old Ben Franklin replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

Franklin was probably one of the wisest men in America. We are dangerously close to losing our Republic and people are beginning to take notice. The recent incident in Nevada is a case in point. We have a president who, besides being incompetent, is also acting in the role of king. He ignores laws that he has signed, and thwarts congress and the courts. He, along with several of his predecessors, have expanded the Federal governments powers, subverted the courts and are now militarizing law enforcement agencies. This is how all police states start.

This effort is being undertaken to destroy the last vestiges of republican governance, ensuring there is no longer a republic to keep.

And now you know why gun and ammunition sales are going through the roof. As I wrote a year ago, people aren’t buying guns because they might be banned, the American people are arming for war, and if it happens, it will be a horrible things that will make the “Unpleasantness” between 1861-1865 look like a minor disagreement. It isn’t to late. There is still hope. Many states are taking to heart Mark Levin’s ideas in his recent best seller, “The Liberty Amendments ((Review: The Liberty Amendments))” and are starting down the path as laid out in the Constitution to call for a Constitutional Convention to propose changes to the Constitution that are designed to strip the assumed powers away from the Federal Government and restore the rights of the states under the 10^th Amendment. If your state legislature hasn’t voted to call a ConCon, call your state representatives and rip their ears off telling them to do so.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...