My past two posts — here and here — have explored the current push for reform of America’s Electoral College.
This final post examines why the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC) is dangerous to the country.
InterAlia/OPCA features an article from Oklahoma, where the reform bill is currently being considered. Bobby Lepak defends the current Electoral College:
The Electoral College was developed for a reason. The Founders were well aware of ancient democracies and the shortfalls of a popular vote for president, and chose to develop a system that protects our constitutional republic.
The current electoral process demands that the President have a broad base of support from the states, thus making him the President of the United States, not President of the People. Surrendering the state’s will to the will of the people of other states is simply not how the system is supposed to work. The Founders considered electing the President by a popular vote and chose against it.
Upstate Voice explains why the Founding Fathers opposed a democracy (emphases mine):
Our founding fathers understood that pure Democracy (majority/mob rules) can lead to the curtailing or elimination of liberty for the minority or stated another way; pure Democracy leads to tyranny of the majority. 50%+1 of the population can impose their will on the remaining 50%-1 of the population. History has shown us that this can lead to, among other things, dictatorships, totalitarianism, discrimination and slavery.
Under a National Popular Vote, 100% of the citizens in a state could vote for candidate A and all of the state’s electoral college votes go to candidate B, rending small states powerless and the will of the people in the state irrelevant.
The end result of NPVC would be to
ensure a progressive will always control the administrative branch.
Upstate Voice explains the concept behind federalism, which ties in with Electoral College principles:
Each state, no matter the population in the state, sends two Senators to Washington to represent the interests of that state. No one state has more power in the Senate that any other state. This helps to ensure that larger, more populated states cannot impose their will on smaller, less populated states.
The same concept applies to the electoral college and the presidential election. We cannot allow a few large states to decide who our president will be. All states must be fairly represented and the electoral college helps to ensure that all states have a voice.
The upshot is that
The progressives in America have embarked on an effort to circumvent the intent of the constitution and take permanent control the presidency. Progressives are not concerned with Federalism or “Tyranny of the Majority”, as long as they are the majority.
As Bobby Lepak says for OPCA:
A bill can be known by the company it keeps. NPV is endorsed by left wing groups like ACLU, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, and Common Cause, an organization that receives its funding from groups like George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the Tides Foundation. Obviously, these groups would not be supporting NPV if they did not stand to benefit from it. Meanwhile, no major conservative figures have come out in support of NPV.
There might be plenty of RINOs — Republicans in Name Only — but no true conservatives supporting it.
As for 2012, he writes:
The reason these groups have flocked to the NPV movement is their radical agenda is much easier to advance without the Electoral College standing in the way. It is becoming increasingly difficult for liberal presidential candidates to draw electoral maps where they can win without having to compromise on many of their positions.
Under a NPV scheme, a candidate like President Obama could run on a much more extreme platform and focus all of his efforts on getting voters to the polls in liberal strongholds rather than having to come to the middle and persuade more moderate voters to vote for him.
An NPV scheme will turn the presidential election into a get-out-the-vote contest, rather than a debate on ideas. With liberal groups like Project Vote (ACORN’s voter-mobilization arm) committing massive voter fraud, conservatives will be at a disadvantage in every presidential election.
If you can, please let your legislators know the dangers of NPVC. The United States was never meant to run as a reality television show.
End of series
10 comments
November 9, 2011 at 12:41 am
Cyril Ignatius
Well said on all counts. What can I add other than to point out the contempt with which the ruling elite regards these founding principles – both sacred and secular. I feel history is repeating itself – passions emerge around which an emergent elite focuses its power and energy. Many people sense that something is seriously wrong, prophets issues warnings, but the passions of the day are inflamed – and constantly fanned by powerful, influential and comfortable people – wolves in sheep’s clothing of course. And they take so many people with them. The coming years will be the most volatile in our history.
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 12:50 am
churchmouse
Thank you very much, Cyril, for your insight. I, too, believe that this is ominous and that history is repeating itself. (Of course, how many people know and understand their nation’s or the world’s history these days??)
You have a particularly interesting perspective as you have taught Sociology at university level. You are/were, therefore, part of a group of people much closer to the zeitgeist, as it were.
(Later edit — expanding on the topic, the greater picture in the West): The media in our countries make out as if we are the only ones experiencing ‘that something is seriously wrong’. Tracking American, British and French popular opinion, I can assure everyone in the West that they are not alone.
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 1:05 am
Cyril Ignatius
Yes, we aren’t alone. There are some people across Europe thinking these exact thoughts right now. But here in America – my occupation, and my discipline are most known for being disciples of this great big Progressive machine. And the way issues are framed and the manner by which students connect to their teachers and the profession tend to guarantee that most new recruits to the profession are disciples of a Progressivism. My hope is that the symptoms of the problems of Progressivism are seen widely enough across enough social venues as to make a powerful defense very viable.
Can the President defend his record against an intelligent, informed, and rhetorically skilled opposition candidate? He can’t. And that is one big hope.
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 1:21 am
churchmouse
I really hope you are right on that last paragraph — and I sincerely mean that. The 2008 election in reality was about anything but hope and change. No one outside the US believed that one, sorry to say, but now the light is beginning to dawn (‘beginning’ being the operative word there).
As I received your comment I was reading about Herman Cain’s situation. Not sure if you read the following blogs, but you might find these entries of interest if you’ve been tracking the candidates to date:
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/62809/herman-cain-not-ready-for-any-time/#more-62809
http://hillbuzz.org/2011/11/07/why-wont-the-agenda-driven-media-report-on-barack-obama-being-gay-dating-actor-kal-penn-and-frequenting-chicago-bathhouse-mans-country-you-know-the-way-they-leaped-to-trash-herman-cain-with-u/
(Readers might wish to know that the HillBuzz content should not be shared with children — however, it is not gratuitous adult content and does serve a serious purpose. This came out in 2008, but no one wanted to know.)
It’s interesting how you say that students in your discipline are groomed to be ‘disciples of this great big Progressive machine’. (I, too, wanted to read Sociology when I was in high school. What could have been better? We had two intros during my four years, and I thought it was great. I loved Margaret Mead’s anthropology work, too. Couldn’t believe it when she was called out on it and said (paraphrased), ‘Well, if it were true, that’s how it would have happened.’ Uh-huh. By then, no doubt, you were already teaching.) Yes, I can imagine that the issues and their framing can produce some, ahem, interesting outcomes. I share your hope that more people across the spectrum awake from their slumber. The two sites I have linked to in this message, by the way, are populated by ex-Democrats (thanks to the events of 2008).
Happy to keep the discussion going, should you wish.
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 8:58 am
jameshigham
This, like the ill fated SPPNA, is an attempt to get power via the back door. It would be nice if you could bring this, maybe in abridged form, to OoL because there’d be very few who would know about it.
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 11:30 am
churchmouse
Many thanks, James — I’d be happy to abridge it for OoL.
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 4:02 pm
churchmouse
After reading your message, I checked on the status of the SPPNA — shall post more early next week. Scary because of the latest developments and, equally, because it doesn’t hit the MSM or even most blogs.
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 11:02 am
GdF – EU Politburo | Orphans of Liberty
[…] I also humbly yet strongly suggest you take in this series of articles on the “Progressives” changes, through the U.S. states themselves, of the way the […]
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Cyril Ignatius
Cain is probably making some novice mistakes, but these seem far preferable to the plastic style of Romney and Republican insiders. Cain seems honest, and honesty in a President is desparately needed right now – in particular, an honesty rooted in real knowledge of how commerce works.
The sociologists, and most academics will stay loyal to tObama and the Progressive machine. All the Occupy demonstrations and criticisms of Obama from all these people will evaporate before the election when they reluctantly realize the obvious that his opponent – Cain – Gingrich, Bachman or whoever it will be will be something other than a fully committed Progressive. However, enough Americans have a clue at this point, that the nomination of an intelligent principled person willing to wade into all the issues head on will make Obama a one-termer. He Cannot handle Cain in a one-on-one debate. Nor could he handle Gingrich.
I’d be interested in a possible Third Party candidate of Libertarian leanings, solid foundations and great verbal skills. A majority of Americans know Obama is a weak leader and that he has not accomplished much of anything. And a large minority know he has been disastrous. . We aren’t dead yet, even if the people at NBC, CBS, CNN and NBC are.
LikeLike
November 17, 2011 at 2:16 am
How Electoral College reform could change America for the worse | Orphans of Liberty
[…] Obama isn’t worried about a second term’, ‘Who’s behind it’ and ‘Why it’s dangerous’. Be Sociable, […]
LikeLike