I apologize that most of the articles I post are very long, but I try and provide background in what I post to be sure people understand. I cannot assume that everyone knows what I do and I have to make sure people understand the point I am making.
Article 2 clause 2 of the U.S. constitution - Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
This is REALLY important. This is the entire point of the checks and balances and how progressives disrupted our constitution initially. If you have read my previous posts, the house, more commonly known as “the people’s house” was intended to be a representational body of the people, as our republic grew, each representative district would be proportionally representative of the people. That is why is known as “The people’s house”.
That way, one part of the federal government always reflects the people’s wishes. The second body, the Senate was intended defend the interest of the state. So, it was proportionally representative with 2 senators per state, selected by state legislatures. The legislatures would select Senators that would defend the interest of the state itself, and so the interest of the citizens needed to coincide with the interest of the state to pass legislation that would reach the president at the federal level. That way, the people, the states, and the entire country would agree that a law was necessary before it was passed. That worked for over 100 years until the progressives started screwing up our system of government.
This was completely screwed up by the passage of the 17th Amendment (which I believe desperately needs to be repealed) making senators elected by popular vote, not by the legislatures and no longer do the states have a voice in the federal government. Both houses are now popular vote houses of the people, making the senate irrelevant except for the few constitutional things they must do, but they do not by will of the state, but by will of the people.
While this is interesting (and important) historically to understand, what does this have to do with the title and topic? Well you need to understand the background and thought process to understand the point I am going to make.
In the same way they wanted to have checks and balances in lawmaking, they wanted checks and balances in elections. They knew, even back then, that by a popular vote for President, it would be a small minority of the population overall (even if majority numbers) who would select a president.
At that time, it would always be a New York/Virginia decision, the other states would be mostly irrelevant unless ever state aligned.
Today It is a NY/CA decision. Or even more specifically, west coast/NE coast who would elect every president. Seattle vote dominates WA, Portland vote Dominates OR, LA/SF/Sacramento vote dominates CA, NYC vote dominates NY, Boston vote dominates MA, etc.
The most populous cities would always elect the president disenfranchising virtually all other states.
This is why we have the electoral college. It isn’t an 18th century relic, it isn’t because of slow communications, it is to ensure that all states have an adequate voice.
What determines the electoral college?
The amount of representatives plus the 2 senators each state has determines how many votes they get in the electoral college (how many actually knew that?) That means that each state has a representative voice to get a majority vote in the electoral college. No state is ignored, every state is ignored.
Again, this is history, and knowledge building, but how does it build to my topic? Well what happens if you under mine and/or get rid of the electoral college and/or convince people it is irrelevant?
The popular vote always wins the election. Also, do you understand with this background why it not only should not, but it CAN NOT be allowed?
With this background, this leads me to hoping you understand enough about why the electoral college exists and the entire premise to understand what the democrats are doing (and I am sure you understand why) to undermine it and get rid of it and convince everyone it is antiquated and worthless.
When you have a limited number of states you can win because much of America (often belittled by democrats as “flyover” country) rejects them, you can’t win those states through the electoral college. You can only win them by ignoring them, which brings us back to the popular vote (aside from the open borders immigration to simply try and change the electorate, but a different topic)
I am not going to post a bunch of links, just a couple, it is easy enough to search for if you want to, it takes little effort, I will just explain what they are doing – you know understand WHY they are doing it, so what are they doing?
They are trying to thwart the constitution and get around it through the state to make the electoral college irrelevant.
They are working hard in states to prevent the “winner take all” popular vote in the state, they want electoral votes divided.
If the electoral votes are divided, then LA/NYC/SF would decide ever future presidential election from now on.
How democratic is that really? Especially in a constitutional republic?
There is much other proof out there, this was just a quick link, but this is their stated goal since the Trump election, aside from impeachment. They know they cannot win without a majority vote that they can live with, because most of the country has rejected them, and will not vote for them, which is why they are going all for illegal immigrants and trying to change the voter base...