For years, America's Democratic, progressive left has pushed for the abolition of the Electoral College. After President Donald Trump was elected in 2016 despite losing the popular vote, left-wing support for the idea exploded to the forefront of leftist dogma. Though leftist politicians justify their position by insisting that a pure democracy would grant every person equal voting power, they fail to address the implications of endorsing the tyranny of the majority and the long term damage that such a change would cause.
The leftist goal of eliminating the electoral college is already underway. The Democratic party has a well-developed grassroots activist network, and the process has proliferated under the cover of a media blackout.
Since the beginning of this legislative session, 12 states have passed a bill that compels its electors to cast their ballots for whichever presidential nominee wins the national popular vote (NPV). These bills are not yet in effect and are set to take effect when enough states to secure 270 electoral votes - and the presidency - pass the same bill and join the mob-rule coalition. To date, those 12 states have secured 172 electoral votes. Another 11 states - which carry 89 electoral votes have passed the bill in one chamber and will soon pass it through the second chamber. At this point, the angry mob will have secured 261 votes. New Mexico and Colorado have passed this bill in prior years, and once they get around to passing it this year, the total votes will equal 275. New Hampshire would give them 279 electoral votes. And another nine states (carrying 75 electoral votes) have passed the bill through one chamber only. The angry democratic mob has more than enough votes to turn the United States Presidential Election into a purely democratic one.
As we've witnessed with many other recent policy changes that are constitutionally questionable, this will likely end up in the courts. Being the better-organized party, the Democrats might get the case into the 9th circuit who (also suffer from TDS and who) would likely uphold it. The only option for Republicans and constitutionalists at that point would be to beg the SCOTUS to declare some sort of injunction and then agree to take the case.
I could make a solid argument for the SCOTUS refusing to take the case. As you might imagine, the movement’s website has a robust FAQ and ‘mythbusting’ page on their site. Though they are authoritarian statists, they do correctly explain that the Constitution seems to grant each STATE the power to choose how its presidential electors vote. Even if the SCOTUS does take the case, they might rule in favor of the democratic mob and they might do what they did in Marbury V. Madison and rule that they don't have the authority to rule on this case since the electors are ultimately controlled by each State's Secretary of State.
The only issue that the NPV movement might face from a legal/constitutional perspective stems from their use of the term ‘compact’. Article 1, section 10 of the US Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." That said, a Democratic Congress would likely approve the NPV compact, and leftist judges might rule in the activists’ favor anyway.
Will this increased amount of direct democracy (read: mob rule) affect policy in the US?
The United States has steadily grown from a democratic republic into a democratic oligarchy (fewer natural rights recognized by government and more power in the hands of fewer politicians). The major effect of the NPV initiative achieving its goal will be a shift in presidential campaign tactics. Instead of visiting a broad variety of states (possibly all 48 contiguous states), presidential candidates may soon begin to campaign almost exclusively in high-density areas like NYC and LA. Considering that those areas vote super-democratic, this would give the Democrats a distinct advantage in presidential elections.The Democrat could campaign in only 5 cities and potentially earn over 10 million votes. The Republican nominee might need to visit the 100 most populous Republican strongholds to reach the same number of potential voters. This article by BrillianMaps.com explains that without the electoral college, a presidential candidate could have won the presidency by winning only 500 counties in the whole US while their opponent won 2,600 counties.
There is danger in allowing a simple majority to set the rules of our society. If "might makes right," almost any form of tyranny can become legal. As the saying goes: “Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.” - Martin Simkin. The current electoral college system is saving the lamb from becoming the meal. A pure democracy deciding the presidency will not protect minorities, it will empower a small elitist group to abolish human rights and implement restrictive forms of government. What was begun with the 17th Amendment will come full circle - the states will lose the powers that our founders so carefully worked to guarantee. The founders did not create a pure democracy. They sought to protect natural rights from the tyranny of the majority (‘two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, gang-rape, etc.) by creating a republic……as Benjamin Franklin stated…….”if you can keep it”.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views held by The Liberty Block or any of its contributors or members.
Comments