Monday, November 20, 2017

National Popular Vote vs the Electoral College

The National Popular Vote (NPV) movement would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The movement began with Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. Gore won the popular vote while Bush won the Electoral College vote. This situation was repeated in Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump in 2016. The NPV movement then picked up steam -- and fury.

In 2016, Clinton won 13 States. Trump won the majority in 37 States. The Electoral College protected over 70% of the States from 13 big-population, high-welfare States deciding for 37 other states who the president would be. Not to mention California has 18.5 million registered voters. That's more than all the other west coast states plus Hawaii and Alaska, combined.

Do the math, then thank God our founding fathers had the genius and inspiration to create the Electoral College.

A look at the way we voted in 2016 (the map is very similar for all recent presidential elections) shows that only the counties with big cities and high-welfare enrollment voted Blue (Democrat). Virtually every other county voted Red (Republican). I see no reason why we should let the big cities of California and New York pick the president for the rest of us. The Electoral College is the only protection we have from such a disaster.

NPV would force my own State of Utah to go along with the national popular vote even if the majority of Utah voted against that candidate. That would mean 80% of Utah could vote for candidate A, but if candidate B got the national popular vote, then 20% of Utah would decide for the other 80% who we vote for. Is that a fair outcome?

Promoters of the NPV process to circumvent (yes, that is the correct term) the Constitution base their argument on democracy (government by majority vote). I must remind them that the US is NOT a democracy and never was. It is a republic (government by elected representatives) as are each of the 50 States. The Electoral College is a republican (representative) feature of the Constitution. Hence the opposition from those who want majority (ie mob) rule.
The authors and ratifiers of the Constitution clearly wanted the states to have a say in the operation of the central government in order to keep it under control. Two tools they put in it to protect the rights and responsibilities of the individual States to keep the central government under control were:
1 - State appointment of US senators and
2 - The Electoral College.

Unfortunately, "progressive" statists (the only things that progress under "progressivism" are government power and cost) were successful in eliminating state appointment of US Senators through the 17th Amendment in 1913. That, combined with the power to destroy that came through the 16th Amendment, has resulted in exponentially rising federal power, corruption, and cost.

Today's statists want to further neuter the States by circumventing the Electoral College. Thanks to the 17th Amendment, the States are little more than functionaries of the central government. NPV would be the final nail in the coffin for states' rights and responsibilities. At that point, we might as well eliminate state boundaries and state governments altogether.

The tone of the effort to circumvent the Electoral College seems rather desperate. That alone is a good reason to reject it. The obvious fact that the effort is a direct response to Democrat losses is further reason for rejection.

If NPV is such a great idea, why don't its advocates simply work to have the Constitution amended to replace the Electoral College with popular vote? Instead of subterfuge, show us some courage and integrity for a change!

The Democrats seem to believe that the popular vote could never go Republican (or any other party). Advocates of this scheme need to ask themselves, "What could possibly go wrong?"

No comments:

Post a Comment