Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote

[GMDino]

By the time you get to the part of their argument where they say Democrats are trying to change laws to influence elections you realize irony is not only dead but that the Federalist Society dug up the corpse and had it's way with it, multiple times, before hanging it in a window for all to see.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/28/democrats-are-dangerously-close-to-changing-laws-so-our-president-is-elected-by-popular-vote/

Quote:The left’s push for a popular vote for the presidency directly undermines the electoral system established by our Constitution.

ANDREW MORGAN
MORE ARTICLES
SHARE

• Share Article on Facebook
• Share Article on Twitter
• Copy Article Link
• ?subject=Democrats%20Are%20Dangerously%20Close%20To%20Changing%20Laws%20So%20Our%20President%20Is%20Elected%20By%20Popular%20Vote&body=The%20left%27s%20push%20for%20a%20popular%20vote%20for%20the%20presidency%20directly%20undermines%20the%20electoral%20system%20established%20by%20our%20Constitution.%20https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/28/democrats-are-dangerously-close-to-changing-laws-so-our-president-is-elected-by-popular-vote/
• [/url]
  

The left is at it again, and conservatives need to be on high alert. The left has been pushing for a national popular vote to elect the president of the United States for years. Since 2017, 10 more states have either signed the National Popular Vote bill into law or approved the bill in one state legislative chamber. This should be a grave concern because it directly undermines the electoral system established by our Constitution. If not stopped, the American system of presidential elections will be changed potentially forever.

The National Popular Vote bill 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 [url=https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status]enacted by 15 state legislatures plus Washington, D.C., and passed in 41 legislative chambers in 24 states. For the proposal to become the law of the land, enough states totaling at least 270 electoral votes would be required to enact the law, and states would then commit their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes nationally, regardless of which candidate won at the state level.

The states that have enacted the compact represent 195 electoral votes: Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, California, New York, and the District of Columbia. States with passage in one chamber include Arkansas, Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Successful passage in all of these states represents 283 electoral votes, enough to change the law and make our presidential election decided via popular vote rather than the Electoral College. 

Democrats have long been unhappy with the electoral process, unless, of course, their candidate won. When their candidate loses, debate begins anew about how unfair the Electoral College is. The argument is always the same. Since we conduct our elections by democratic process, it makes sense to elect our nation’s executive according to the will of the majority with a voting plurality.

Five times, presidential candidates have won elections without the popular vote: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000), and Donald Trump (2016).

Minority and Less Populated Areas Would Lack Representation
The commonly heard sentiment during election cycles is “every vote matters.” However, what is not fair is that if the president is elected based on a plurality, then the minority would not have a chance of having their candidate elected. Only the concerns and interests of more heavily populated areas, such as the East and West coast cities, would be represented. Interests of the minority and less populated areas would naturally be set aside and of little interest to future presidential candidates. Worse, the executive would be beholden and accountable solely to the majority.

This condition was not the intent of our founders. Their intent was to ensure that the nation’s highest executive, as well as the executive branch, represented the interests of all Americans regardless of political affiliation. A future president would need to appeal to those concerned about not just national but also regional issues.

Further, the Electoral College provided a means to disburse and decentralize power. State electors are elected just days before and are unknown until just prior to an election to prevent undue influence to stay true to the people’s votes in their states. Our founders framed it so as to prevent collusion and cabalist (their word) behavior, preclude violence, and thwart involvement of foreign powers.

Cabalism Comes to Light
Following the 2020 election, our founders’ concerns came to light and fruition. Our national elections have been fraught with cabalist behavior, undue influence, numerous forms of cheating, as well as foreign interference. The tyranny they feared came to pass, driven by collusion among the administrative state, the legislative branch, legacy media, Big Tech, and nongovernmental organizations. An independent executive branch separate from the legislature has become an illusion.

In Federalist Paper 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “the process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of the president will never fall with a lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue and a little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first owners of a single state, but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union.” Hamilton would have been appalled today to have witnessed the travesty undermining his sentiment.

So why does all this matter?

An Oppressive Majority
It matters because the idea of a national popular vote is gaining steam and if adopted by enough states, the Electoral College will become irrelevant. Minority voter interests will no longer matter at the national level. Only the whims of the majority will. And the result will be precisely why Socrates opposed a democratic form of government. Once a majority is established, it finds a way to remain permanent, and the majority class will become oppressive to the minority class. There will be no means to overturn the majority, no matter how skewed the majority’s view may be.

The implications for the country are vast and would make the United States just another oppressive tyrannical state. The ultimate reason for the success of the U.S. was that its founders held a belief that we are created and guided by a higher power, and they recognized that men are inherently corruptible. They implemented controls to prevent those with ambitions from achieving outright power over the minority, thus making the U.S. unique among nations.

Left Looks to Crush the Right
The left’s tactics are in high gear, accelerating in an attempt to overwhelm conservatives and Republicans to a tipping point at which the left acquires complete control and the right becomes powerless.

The left’s all-out assault has become abundantly clear since President Joe Biden took office. As soon as Democrats attained the presidency and the narrowest of majorities in the House and Senate, they pressed forward with their agenda, nearly unimpeded had it not been for the likes of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and perhaps divine intervention.  

Whether changing voting laws in its favor, creating crises to circumvent the laws already in place, continually flooding the courts with litigation designed to throw sand in the gears of transparent elections, or changing the electoral process altogether, the left’s efforts to gain and retain control, by any means necessary, will not relent.

In addition to ongoing election integrity efforts across the nation, it is imperative that conservatives push back attempts to advance a national popular vote. It is incumbent upon individual citizens to tell their state representatives that it is not the desire of the people to circumvent the constitutional process for electing our president.

Failure to stop a national popular vote could take generations to reverse.

---

Andrew Morgan is a former deputy assistant secretary of the Army, a senior executive within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and a retired U.S. Navy captain. He received his MBA from George Washington University and master's from National Defense University.

[CKwi88]

That's an awful lot of words for "The GOP can't win in a straight popular vote".

[BigPapaKain]

(07-29-2022, 01:19 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: That's an awful lot of words for "The GOP can't win in a straight popular vote".

By their own admission.

Maybe they should have a platform that isn't a variation of '**** you I got mine'.

[samhain]

(07-29-2022, 01:19 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: That's an awful lot of words for "The GOP can't win in a straight popular vote".

Never underestimate the power of gerrymandering.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

I honestly embrace this, even though I don't think it will go through, and not because I want the Democrats to win every election, because I don't.

In my opinion, this is pretty much the only way that the GOP will forced to abandon their caveman politics and actually compromise and adjust to an ever changing world. This may also increase the already puny chance of a legitimate third party to rise up and make a difference other than just gleaning votes from one side.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

It is interesting watching people display profound ignorance about the Constitution and its deliberate efforts to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Straight majority rule was something they actively strove against, hence the Senate. Oh wait, that's something the Dems want to radically alter as well. Isn't that interesting?

[*Nately120*]

(07-29-2022, 01:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is interesting watching people display profound ignorance about the Constitution and its deliberate efforts to prevent the tyranny of the majority.  Straight majority rule was something they actively strove against, hence the Senate.  Oh wait, that's something the Dems want to radically alter as well.  Isn't that interesting?

Aren't we flirting with straight minority rule?  I always assume bad intentions and tyrants will seek the easiest path to victory. 

I will admit I have some recency bias here since the closest thing I've seen to a tyrant in my mind is Trump and the popular vote would have kept him from ever attaining power.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-29-2022, 01:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is interesting watching people display profound ignorance about the Constitution and its deliberate efforts to prevent the tyranny of the majority.  Straight majority rule was something they actively strove against, hence the Senate.  Oh wait, that's something the Dems want to radically alter as well.  Isn't that interesting?

Not nearly as interesting as watching people froth at the mouth to install an autocratic ruler or a full on oligarchy.

But I guess if you're happy with the literal do nothing Republicans that's on you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-29-2022, 02:20 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Aren't we flirting with straight minority rule?  I always assume bad intentions and tyrants will seek the easiest path to victory.

How so?  Have the Dems been unable to pass any legislation since holding the White House and both branches of Congress?  

Quote:I will admit I have some recency bias here since the closest thing I've seen to a tyrant in my mind is Trump and the popular vote would have kept him from ever attaining power.

Understandable.  But that, on its own, is not a reason to completely undue a keystone of our nations governance.  Let's put it this way, and the answer is patently obvious, would all the people clamoring for these changes be of the same opinion if their ideological opponents were currently the "majority'?  We both know the answer is a huge, hell no.  It's built into us to whinge about things when they don't go our way and then laud the same rules when the benefit us, look no further than SCOTUS for perfect examples.  If rule are consistently applied then they will benefit you at times and not others.  Actively trying to change the rules when they don't is the absolute beginning of the disintegration of governance.  Take packing the SCOTUS for example.  The rational people on the left correctly point out that doing so will simply enable the GOP to do the exact same thing when they're, inevitably, in power.  Then we end up with a SCOTUS with 100+ justices.  No, if you want foundational change then it absolutely must come from within the current framework, otherwise just start the clock ticking on the nation's disintegration.  Not that that hasn't already happened, an argument can certainly be made.  

[*pally*]

Changing the Senate, absent a Constitutional amendment which will never happen, will only occur if places like Puerto Rico finally are admitted as state.

However, what no one ever talks about, is that the size of the House of Representatives is entirely in the hands of Congress itself. The House was artificially set at 435 over 100 years ago by statute. This move totally screwed up the intention of the Founders to have the House be proportionally representative of each state's population. For instance, California should have at least 13 more seats than they do based on their nearly 40 million citizens vs Wyoming's 600,000 if districts were based on the lowest population. If we go back to the Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3, there was supposed to be 1 seat per every 30,000 in population with a minimum of 1 per state. Using that number California should have 1333 districts. I admit that 1333 is unwieldy, but uncapping the size of the House to at least allow for the seat to be properly apportioned would ease some of the issues surrounding the electoral college.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-29-2022, 02:53 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Not nearly as interesting as watching people froth at the mouth to install an autocratic ruler or a full on oligarchy.

But I guess if you're happy with the literal do nothing Republicans that's on you.

Another interesting accusation from you.  I assume we'll get the same cogent and logical argument backing up your claim as we did in the other threads.  

[BigPapaKain]

(07-29-2022, 02:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Another interesting accusation from you.  I assume we'll get the same cogent and logical argument backing up your claim as we did in the other threads.  

Not an accusation, just a statement.

But if the shoe fits, I'm sure you'll lick it.

[Belsnickel]

(07-29-2022, 01:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is interesting watching people display profound ignorance about the Constitution and its deliberate efforts to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Straight majority rule was something they actively strove against, hence the Senate. Oh wait, that's something the Dems want to radically alter as well. Isn't that interesting?

Allowing for a popular vote for POTUS doesn't equate to straight majority rule. That is a terrible argument for maintaining the EC.

First, the EC wasn't about preventing majority rule. It was about letting the elites pick the president because the average citizen would not know the individuals running. This was, of course, after they moved on from having Congress pick the president which was the same thing. It had nothing to do with preventing majority rule. This is one of the biggest lies in this whole discussion.

Second, POTUS doesn't "rule." We don't have a ruler. Congress is who makes the laws. Each person in Congress represents a geographical area. The Senate is there to provide this parity you mention, and that is fine. It is a good system. POTUS doesn't rule, though, and they can be put in check by Congress or SCOTUS. Those are the real checks on the office.

Third, the EC is an outdated system that is not even being used as it was intended from the start. As previously mentioned, it exists based on the premise that the average citizen will not even know the candidate for POTUS but they would know a person they would trust to cast a vote on their behalf for POTUS. This is no longer the case. How many people in this country actually cast their ballot for an Elector in this country? The answer is zero. Most people, the vast majority, could not even tell you who the Electors would be if their preferred candidate won. We don't actually use the system as designed. It is only maintained to reduce the power of the citizenry in deciding an election.

And the last point for this soapbox of mine for today is that the role of POTUS is not to oversee the states. That's not the job. The role is to run the executive branch and be the Commander in Chief and the Diplomat in Chief. They have no authority over Congress, over the governors, over anyone other than federal executive branch employees. So the idea that the states choose the POTUS instead of the people is asinine. It is rooted in antiquated thinking that is actually rooted in the ideals of the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution under which our government is formed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-29-2022, 03:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Allowing for a popular vote for POTUS doesn't equate to straight majority rule. That is a terrible argument for maintaining the EC.

First, the EC wasn't about preventing majority rule. It was about letting the elites pick the president because the average citizen would not know the individuals running. This was, of course, after they moved on from having Congress pick the president which was the same thing. It had nothing to do with preventing majority rule. This is one of the biggest lies in this whole discussion.

Alternatively, it was to allow the states of the United States to each have their own say in who is President of the United States.

Quote:Second, POTUS doesn't "rule." We don't have a ruler. Congress is who makes the laws. Each person in Congress represents a geographical area. The Senate is there to provide this parity you mention, and that is fine. It is a good system. POTUS doesn't rule, though, and they can be put in check by Congress or SCOTUS. Those are the real checks on the office.

I was speaking of the general intent of the Framers, not only in regard to the presidency, which I addressed above.

Quote:Third, the EC is an outdated system that is not even being used as it was intended from the start. As previously mentioned, it exists based on the premise that the average citizen will not even know the candidate for POTUS but they would know a person they would trust to cast a vote on their behalf for POTUS. This is no longer the case. How many people in this country actually cast their ballot for an Elector in this country? The answer is zero. Most people, the vast majority, could not even tell you who the Electors would be if their preferred candidate won. We don't actually use the system as designed. It is only maintained to reduce the power of the citizenry in deciding an election.

I disagree that that was the sole intention behind the EC, again as I explained above.  If the states don't have their own say in who is POTUS then why the hell do we have them in the first place?  As you know the system was created intentionally to give the states a large degree of autonomy, the EC is just on facet of that.

Quote:And the last point for this soapbox of mine for today is that the role of POTUS is not to oversee the states. That's not the job. The role is to run the executive branch and be the Commander in Chief and the Diplomat in Chief. They have no authority over Congress, over the governors, over anyone other than federal executive branch employees. So the idea that the states choose the POTUS instead of the people is asinine. It is rooted in antiquated thinking that is actually rooted in the ideals of the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution under which our government is formed.

Again, this is an argument directed at a point that wasn't being made, but I understand how you came to that conclusion.

[Belsnickel]

(07-29-2022, 03:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Alternatively, it was to allow the states of the United States to each have their own say in who is President of the United States.

I was speaking of the general intent of the Framers, not only in regard to the presidency, which I addressed above.

I disagree that that was the sole intention behind the EC, again as I explained above.  If the states don't have their own say in who is POTUS then why the hell do we have them in the first place?  As you know the system was created intentionally to give the states a large degree of autonomy, the EC is just on facet of that.

I'm just addressing these three together: the purpose of the EC was because the framers knew the general public would not know the people running for president. Full stop. We know this because it is in the notes from the Constitutional Congress. The number of electors was a compromise done in a similar fashion as congressional numbers, but the entire purpose of it was because they didn't want the power in the hands of Congress as that would effectively eliminate one of the checks and because they knew the people would know have the information needed. The whole idea that it was so the states could have a say is hokum.

(07-29-2022, 03:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, this is an argument directed at a point that wasn't being made, but I understand how you came to that conclusion.

Except, you proceeded to make the argument. I knew it would be coming.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-29-2022, 03:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm just addressing these three together: the purpose of the EC was because the framers knew the general public would not know the people running for president. Full stop. We know this because it is in the notes from the Constitutional Congress. The number of electors was a compromise done in a similar fashion as congressional numbers, but the entire purpose of it was because they didn't want the power in the hands of Congress as that would effectively eliminate one of the checks and because they knew the people would know have the information needed. The whole idea that it was so the states could have a say is hokum.


Except, you proceeded to make the argument. I knew it would be coming.

I don't disagree with your point, other than it being the only reason for the EC.  Again, why invest so much autonomy in the states, largely because of a fear of an overly powerful federal government, and then not give said states any say in the election of the POTUS? 

[Belsnickel]

(07-29-2022, 04:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree with your point, other than it being the only reason for the EC.  Again, why invest so much autonomy in the states, largely because of a fear of an overly powerful federal government, and then not give said states any say in the election of the POTUS? 

Because they learned that too much autonomy was a bad thing, plus the executive wasn't considered to have much power. During the convention, the original idea for selecting the executive was that it would be chosen by the legislature. In fact, it was so much a done deal that there are very few notes on the debate because there wasn't much of one. There were a handful of vocal opponents, though, who wanted popular vote because the idea of the legislature choosing the executive was counter to the idea of the separation of powers and they anticipated corruption. The idea of the legislature choosing them was simple: they would be the ones who would know the candidates.

However, two other ideas were proposed. The first alternative was the idea that states, either through their legislature or by their governor, would select the executive. This idea received the least support of the options. So why did this idea receive the least support if the whole idea of the EC was for the states to have a say? Well, because that wasn't a reason. The convention knew that this power in the hands of the states was an even more corrupt idea than the federal legislature because they had just wrapped up a short-lived experiment under the Articles of Confederation.

The EC was a compromise solution between the idea of the federal legislature selecting the executive and the popular vote. It is entirely based on the idea of preserving the separation of powers while also acknowledging that the general public would not know who the candidates are for a federal office, so they would vote for a more local person who they would trust to vote in their best interests. That's it. Any other attempts to paint it in some other fashion is romanticizing it. The framers thought the general public would be too ignorant to vote on the executive and that the federal legislature would be too corrupt.

[treee]

Every single portion of our federal government has the ability to be ruled by a minority of voters. The House by gerrymandering, the Senate by being allocated not based on population, the presidency due to the electoral college, and the Supreme Court because they are appointed by the aforementioned Senate and Presidency.

I think having a branch of government actually be directly tied to the popular vote would be a good thing. As it stands now our politicians are seemingly less beholden to voters than they ever have been BECAUSE there is no guarantee that the will of majority will be represented in any fashion.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-29-2022, 05:08 PM)treee Wrote: Every single portion of our federal government has the ability to be ruled by a minority of voters. The House by gerrymandering, the Senate by being allocated not based on population, the presidency due to the electoral college, and the Supreme Court because they are appointed by the aforementioned Senate and Presidency.

I think having a branch of government actually be directly tied to the popular vote would be a good thing. As it stands now our politicians are seemingly less beholden to voters than they ever have been BECAUSE there is no guarantee that the will of majority will be represented in any fashion.

Tyranny of the minority.

[Leon]

(07-29-2022, 05:08 PM)treee Wrote: Every single portion of our federal government has the ability to be ruled by a minority of voters. The House by gerrymandering, the Senate by being allocated not based on population, the presidency due to the electoral college, and the Supreme Court because they are appointed by the aforementioned Senate and Presidency.

I think having a branch of government actually be directly tied to the popular vote would be a good thing. As it stands now our politicians are seemingly less beholden to voters than they ever have been BECAUSE there is no guarantee that the will of majority will be represented in any fashion.

using popular vote in president election is terrible idea. that means places like california and ny have way to much say. thats why the left wants this to happen, they cant win any other way in 2024.