The Progressive Push For Popular Vote

They haven’t stopped whining since early in the morning on November 9, 2016. Despite Democrat criticisms of Donald Trump as being a danger to democracy for saying he might not accept the election results, it actually seems to be Hillary Clinton and her enablers that are dangerous to our republic. Now DNC chair Tom Perez has taken it to a new level. He’s just lying. According to the Washington Free Beacon:

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated “the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution” during a Tuesday night speech.

“The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution,” Perez said during a lecture at Indiana University Law School. “It doesn’t have to be there.”

According to the article, Perez went on to whine about Hillary having won the popular vote echoing Clinton’s own comments that the election was somehow illegitimate and suggesting we look to Kenya as a model for how to create a mechanism for overturning an election. I’m not kidding. She really said that.

Despite Democrat claims to the contrary we do not live in a democracy, by design. A brief review of the writings of the Founders will demonstrate some of the things they feared most in setting up a central government was the tyranny of the majority and the states becoming subservient to a monolithic central power. So we live in a Constitutional Republic. Say it slowly with me Democrats, Re-Pub-lic. See it isn’t so hard.

Some of the primary tools by which the Framers attempted to ensure that large and more populous states, like Texas and California, could not hold undue sway over smaller and less populous states, such as Montana and Rhode Island was the method by which we elected both Senators and the President.

Well, the Progressives in the early 20th century “fixed” how we elected Senators. Much to our detriment in this writer’s humble opinion. Now elected by popular vote, Senators have lost accountability to the government of their home state. Furthermore, they have become entrenched career politicians complicit in the expansion of federal power far beyond the intent of the Founders. Yes, Mitch and Diane, I’m looking at you.

The Progressive movement grew out of the Industrial Revolution in the late 19th and early 20th century due to rapid and fundamental economic changes. Now are dealing with the second wave of Progressives. In their zeal to address the problems posed by a society undergoing significant change due to technology and the global economy,  they desire a strong central government to ensure “fairness” and solve the problems that these changes bring. This is obvious in the popularity of Left-wing darlings, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

Their new obstacle? The Electoral College. You see, the Progressives have conquered many population centers including California, Oregon, Illinois and New York. In Texas and Georgia, they have made inroads in the large urban centers. If they can remove the last remaining obstacle to a government based only on popular vote, they can nearly ensure a Progressive candidate will head the Executive branch for the foreseeable future.

To achieve the destruction of the last remaining obstacle to State subservience to the Federal behemoth, they will continue the narrative of popular vote being more important and even resort to lying as Perez did in his speech. The Electoral College is enshrined in Article II if the Constitution for an explicit purpose.

Georgia is not California. Wyoming is not New York. And as incredulous as it may seem, those of us living in states that have not fallen victim to the Progressive mindset don’t want to be governed from the center as if we have. We don’t want to regulate pet stores. A law forcing public funding of abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth would also meet with quite a bit of resistance. These are just a few examples.

In this political moment, the entire national discussion has become so polarized, it’s often toxic. The differences between the coastal blue states and vast swaths of red states in the middle and to the south have been laid bare. Are red state voters really supposed to contemplate submitting to the will of large urban populations? All because Democrats and Progressives can’t get over the fact they ran a horrible retail candidate, who is ever more demonstrably corrupt, and lost?

Thank goodness the Founder’s had the wisdom to give us one more tool. The Amendment process. As is correct these are ratified by the states requiring a high bar for consensus before an overhaul to the Constitution can be affected. May we all bow to their far-reaching wisdom and thank our lucky stars the reign of Barack Obama gave us so many Republican run states. Or on January 20, 2020, you would be almost certainly choking on the phrase “President Harris”.




The Electoral College is now a national security threat? No, but here’s why we still need it.

How bad is it to want to use “lol” when talking about a commentary on a major media website? Bad. Unfortunately, that’s precisely what comes to mind when reading Politico’s recent absurd attack on the Electoral College.

As usual, when an election doesn’t go their way, the left wants to change things so it will the next time. I’ll distill their argument down for you: the Electoral College needs to finally be done away with because the Russians were able to purchase $100,000 in illegal ads in Wisconsin, which might possibly have persuaded enough voters to give Donald Trump the victory.

Never mind the $200 million spent by the two candidates on advertising. No, it’s the election of Donald Trump, apparently brought to you by the Russians via Facebook that is the latest ax being used to chip away at the Electoral College. Also … wait for it … yes, it’s racist.

As we all know, since Rahm Emmanuel spilled the beans, the left never lets a crisis go to waste. And, knowing that removing the way our Constitution mandates how presidents are elected is a long, uphill battle, they take every opportunity they can to create suspicion and disdain for it in the minds of Americans.

So let’s take a step back and talk about the purpose and necessity of the Electoral College – and why it matters to you – shall we?

A friend recently reminded me that Churchill said, “democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried.” That might be a true statement were it not for the republican form of government.

No system of government will ever be perfect – because people are in charge and people aren’t perfect. But our founders knew, as John Adams pointed out: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” That is why we are a republic and not a democracy.

The Electoral College is an integral part of our form of government. The desire to abolish and replace it with a National Popular Vote is the desire to move us ever closer to direct democracy.

Shouldn’t we have a National Popular Vote, you ask? One person, one vote, after all. We elect everyone else, so it’s only “fair” to directly elect the president, too.

What would elections look like, and how would they change if we switched to a National Popular Vote? Campaigning would immediately and nearly exclusively be relegated to the coasts where the largest population centers are. Nearly all the states within the coastal states would largely be ignored. Many might think, “Good! Keep those filthy politicians away from here.”

But would elections like that be truly representative of the population? Should all subsequent elections be decided by New York, L.A., and a few other cities? And what would politicians do to win votes there? Democrats and too many Republicans already buy votes with giveaways. All politicians would have to outdo one another – by being generous with your money – with promises made for greater and greater largesse to the voters.

And what about recounts? If it’s a close election, how does a nationwide recount sound? Fun, eh? Voter fraud? Scratch that. We definitely have no problem with that whatsoever, and I’m sure it would never, ever occur under a system where only a handful of localities need to be targeted.

In this, as with so many things, the Founders demonstrated their brilliance by giving us the Electoral College. They wanted to ensure that the smaller states would not be ignored and that cities were not given undue attention.

In speaking of government generally, James Madison said it well:  “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

We should tread lightly and be very circumspect when contemplating removing sections of the foundation of our form of government. Incidentally, this is precisely why the Founders mistrusted democracy: because the emotions of the masses could be whipped up and they could make a snap decision – one they might later regret.

Our form of government was intended to cause things to move slowly: to allow passions to cool and level heads to prevail (that was the idea, anyway – it doesn’t happen so much anymore).

As G.K. Chesterton once said, “Whenever you remove any fence, always pause long enough to ask yourself, ‘Why was it put there in the first place?'”

Perhaps we ought to do the same with the Electoral College.

Another Reason You Don’t Want California and New York Deciding Elections

By now it’s old – really old – news that liberals are upset their girl didn’t make it back to the White House. The arguments, excuses and conspiracies have ranged from interesting to questionable to downright insane.

Blame James Comey. Blame the Russians. Blame the rednecks. Blame the Electoral College.

Blame everyone but themselves. Blah, blah, blah …

Liberals are quick to remind us that Hillary Clinton won nearly 3 million votes more than Donald Trump, and they’ve been quick to try to undermine a President who was elected to office by a minority of voters.

If it weren’t for that darned Electoral College.

In just California and New York alone, Clinton defeated Trump by 6 million votes. She earned one-fifth of all her votes in these two states, and three-eighths of all her total Electoral College tally.

So the truth is that had the election been decided on a strictly popular vote, California and New York would have basically chosen the President for the rest of the nation. And this is why the Electoral College method was chosen in the first place – to keep the one or two most populous states from choosing the President who would represent us all.

As if that weren’t enough …

We should also be grateful for the Electoral College for economic reasons.

The latest Rich States, Poor States report from the American Legislative Exchange Council reveals some interesting economic information about New York and California.

According to the report, New York rates 50th – yep that’s right, dead last – among the United States in overall economic outlook for 2017. California fares better than its East Coast sister state, but not by much at 47th.

As if this weren’t bad enough, the picture becomes even more bleak for liberals the further one reads up the list from the bottom. In fact, the bottom 11 states ALL voted for Hillary Clinton in November.

In contrast, the top 10 states ALL voted for Donald Trump.

All of which begs the question:  If government leaders in California and New York can’t handle economics at the state level, why would we want them making economic decisions for the entire nation?


The bottom 11:

50 New York

49 Vermont

48 New Jersey

47 California

46 Connecticut

45 Minnesota

44 Illinois

43 Hawaii

42 Maine

41 Oregon

40 Washington


The top 10:

1 Utah

2 Indiana

3 North Carolina

4 North Dakota

5 Tennessee

6 Florida

7 Wyoming

8 Arizona

9 Texas

10 Idaho

Democrats Cannot Be Taken Seriously

The New York Times published a foaming screed that practically claimed America was stolen by a bunch of old white slave traders, and vouchsafed for their white progeny by an eminently unfair institution called the Electoral College.

Lena Dunham inexcusably wished to conceive a child simply in order to kill it in her womb.

This is why Democrats can no longer be taken seriously. The sickness transcends politics and enters the smoothed surfaces of the liberal cerebrum. We’ve known for quite some time that being a liberal requires the world and everyone in it to align with those particular theories and engineered outcomes demanded by progressive thought.

Jonathan Haight, a secular liberal, presented a thesis about the genesis and nature of human morality which proves this point. He posited five foundations of morality: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, group/loyalty (tribalism), authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.

Haidt found that in general, the moral mind of liberals rests on two of the five bases: Harm and Fairness. The moral mind of conservatives rests on these two bases, but also the other three: Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Because of this, Haidt says, liberals have a much harder time understanding conservatives than vice versa.

Here is where liberals go off the rails, and why they fly into toothless rages of unhinged folly when their worldview bubbles are burst by reality.

Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a “typical conservative” and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.”

Todd Zywicki‘s conclusion:

In short, Haidt’s research suggests that many liberals really do believe that conservatives are heartless bastards–or as a friend of mine once remarked, “Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad ideas, whereas liberals think conservatives are bad people”–and very liberal people think that especially strongly. Haidt suggests that there is some truth to this.

This is actually a very bigoted view of the world. It’s a view where some people are just bad because of how they think. It’s a view that leads people to see issues where there’s only one side (theirs).

It also contributes to idiocies and atrocities against human nature like Dunham’s statement.

“But one day, when I was visiting a Planned Parenthood in Texas a few years ago, a young girl walked up to me and asked me if I’d like to be a part of her project in which women share their stories of abortions,” Dunham said. “I sort of jumped. ‘I haven’t had an abortion,’ I told her. I wanted to make it really clear to her that as much as I was going out and fighting for other women’s options, I myself had never had an abortion.”

“And I realized then that even I was carrying within myself stigma around this issue,” Dunham continued. “Even I, the woman who cares as much as anybody about a woman’s right to choose, felt it was important that people know I was unblemished in this department.”

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias frequently tells a story of an atheist who argued that there is in fact no objective human experience of “good” or evil” since that would imply a transcendent lawgiver (read: God). Zacharias posed a question, if he were to put a live one-year-old baby on the platform and proceed to slaughter it and cut it to pieces with a knife, would that be evil? The atheist replied that he wouldn’t like it, but he couldn’t call it evil. At that, the others standing around averted their eyes and became quiet.

Zacharias noted to the atheist that he himself might have no problem rejecting the notion of evil, but the reaction of the others tells a different story. This is the experience that conservatives like Matt Walsh and S.E. Cupp share. Cupp wrote this:

Dunham doesn’t own this beat, either. Just two years after abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted on three counts of murder for snipping the spinal cords of aborted babies born alive, an oblivious 2015 hashtag campaign on Twitter urged women to #ShoutYourAbortion and state publicly why aborting a baby led to better, happier lives.

I happen to think there’s nothing wrong with stigma being attached to the act of terminating a pregnancy. And a lot of America agrees with me.

There is a stigma to abortion, because it’s a selfish act of a mother choosing her own lifestyle over her baby’s life. I’m not talking about “rape, incest, life of the mother” stuff. I’m talking about what Cupp referred to when she referenced #ShoutYourAbortion. Those things cause the room to go silent.

Or when Wendy Davis started her one-woman war for abortion in Texas, complete with women dousing praying Christians with blood and others chanting “Hail, Satan!” which earned her the moniker “Abortion Barbie” bestowed by Erick Erickson. The room went silent again.

Now the New York Times succumbed to conspiracy-theory rewrites of American history. They morphed it into a plan for white supremacy and control of our government, which is a ridiculous historical assertion. Our founding fathers realized that only by giving individual states an equal voice in electing a president can “e pluribus unum” (unity in diversity) be achieved.

To liberals, diversity is only skin deep. What goes on inside the cranium must be conformed to their views and thoughts, even if history, science, and human nature must be rewritten to make it so. The room is again silent.

If losing 900 seats in state legislatures, and majorities in both the House and Senate since President Obama took the country along with him in a hard leftward jerk, is not signal enough that Democrats have lost any serious moral or social authority with most of America, then to whom shall we address our cogent, reasoned arguments? If most of America is made up of violent, racist, alt-right hillbillies, who are also bad people for their lack of progressive ideals, then who remains to debate real truth and consequences?

Until Democrats can recognize that they are screaming at the tops of their lungs such virulent pabulum, and pull their party out of the fringe, we of sound mind have no reason to take them seriously.

Trump Wins (Again). This Time It’s For Real

This time, it’s for real. Donald J. Trump will be the 45th President of the United States. There were a total of two faithless electors (both in Texas). I was really worried; weren’t you?

Here’s some reactions from the social media community.

And, the New York Times always tries to make this into a drama…

Today The Electoral College Defies Fake News

Today the 538 members of the Electoral College meet to vote on who will actually become the 45th President of the United States. Donald Trump will receive enough electoral votes to win the presidency.

This will happen despite the desperate efforts of Unite For America, which ran its celebrity video on national television all day Sunday. It will happen despite at least one Republican elector’s decision not to vote for Donald Trump in Texas. And it will happen despite President Obama calling the Electoral College a “vestige” and “carryover” from the founding of our country.

The Electoral College will elect Donald Trump despite the effort to stamp out “fake news” on Facebook by using liberal-leaning fact-checkers, despite the main stream media’s plaintive questioning of President Obama on why he didn’t do more about Russia’s hacking. (To which Obama retorted by telling the press they reported on the hacking every single day, and reiterating that no actual election results were affected.)

It will happen despite liberals feeling like the election was robbed from them, because everyone, including many conservatives, were wrong in their predictions of the results. It will happen despite liberals trying to hang former Never Trumpers for being wrong, then hang them for being happy that Trump won. Supposedly if you believed that Trump was an unacceptable choice for a Republican nominee, you must (in their eyes) believe that Hillary Clinton was more acceptable as president. (No. A thousand times no.)

After all the Sturm und Drang, protests, “not my president” signs, threats to move, followed by walking back of threats because “we need to fight,” counseling for traumatized liberals and public employees, and shrill protest, Trump will be sworn in on January 20, 2017.

In the psychology of grief, liberals will eventually come to the final stage of acceptance. They will wake up on the bright cold Saturday morning of January 21st, with President Trump on his first morning in office. Maybe they will see 4 a.m. tweets, but they probably won’t given the limitations of the office and the ability of POTUS to access the internet. (But you never know.)

When I stayed up until 2:30 a.m. on election night, angry because Trump had won and none of the major networks wanted to call the state which put him over 270, I realized that we faced an uphill battle in getting the liberal media to come to terms with what just happened.

Today the Electoral College will put what should be the final nail in the coffin of the liberals fake news operation that Trump really didn’t win. (And no, don’t talk to me about Congress somehow failing to certify that win on January 4th.)

Donald Trump has finally defied the fake news, and he will have won the presidency, fair and square. He will be our president. Liberals and media: Get over it.

Rogue Electors Will Fail; Trump Will Be President

There is a push among liberals to urge electors to reject Donald Trump and vote for someone – anyone according to one plea by Hollywood liberals – else for president. Republicans shouldn’t get upset by these attempts to deny Trump the presidency for one simple reason: They are doomed to fail.

According to the popular vote outcome, Donald Trump is expected to win 306 votes in the Electoral College. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to become president. This means that 37 Republican electors would have to abandon Trump. So far only one, Chris Suprun of Texas, has announced his intention to vote against Mr. Trump.

While the Hollywood appeal is true in its claim that the Constitution doesn’t require electors to vote for any particular candidate, many states do. And what the video doesn’t tell you is what happens next if Trump does not win the Electoral College vote on Dec. 19.

According to the Twelfth Amendment, the election would then go to the House of Representatives where the Dump Trump movement would face two insurmountable obstacles. The first is that the Constitution says that the House must choose from the top three electoral vote getters. At that point, the choice will only be between Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and the third place finisher, if there is one. At this point, there is no consensus candidate for the faithless electors, who call themselves “Hamilton electors,” to rally around, let alone one that could unite Democrats with anti-Trump Republicans. John Kasich, one popular possibility, asked electors not to vote for him last week.

The second is that the House is controlled by Republicans who will almost certainly vote for Donald Trump. The vast majority of Republicans seem to have unified around Trump, at least for the moment.

The odds are long against the election ever making it to the House of Representatives in the first place. Most of the electors who seem to be willing to break faith with their parties and the voters of their states are Democrats. Politico reported in November that “at least a half-dozen Democratic electors” had joined the effort to stop Trump in the Electoral College, but so far Chris Suprun is the only Republican elector to publicly announce his intention to vote against the result of his state’s popular vote.

With the outcome of the Electoral College vote all but certain, the rogue electors can feel free to vote their conscience or resign their position to protest their opposition to their party nominees. It won’t make a difference. The Democrat electors, mostly Bernie Sanders supporters, have nothing more to lose than their party standing (plus state penalties) since their candidate is not going to win anyway.

For Republicans, the choice is more difficult since Trump will become president, with or without their votes. They risk their standing in the party if they take an unpopular stand against a president who has increased his own popularity since his upset victory over Hillary Clinton. The Democratic Party might forgive Bernie supporters. It is less likely that a GOP dominated by Donald Trump will forgive and forget.





Could Does Not Equal Would

Liberal activist professor Larry Lessig says 20 Trump electors “could” flip their votes on Monday when the Electoral College meets.

“Could” is not “would.” And 20 is not 37, the number of Trump electors that would have to abandon him in the Electoral College.

Again, given the rabid campaign by the left, including Hollywood stars, college professors, and members of the Democratic Party, I will take the claims about Russia more seriously if the White House continues pushing them after the Electoral College meets.

Right now it all seems to be tied to the effort to pursuade the Electoral College, not to get to truth.