The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: What Real Voter Suppression Looks Like

One of the most contentious issues brought about as a result of the 2016 Trump Clinton Presidential debates concerned if Trump lost, would he accept the results.  This was never asked of Hillary Clinton, mostly because the costal elites and East coast media machine had decided it was a foregone conclusion that she would win, but she didn’t.  Now it is the democrats who seem to have a problem accepting the outcome of the presidential election.

Now comes the kicker. Since they are unable and unwilling to accept the outcome of the people, they have started a new movement to skirt the assurances of the constitution and a representative government by doing the outlandish – replacing the electoral college with the popular vote. The vehicle for this is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This compact is comprised of 11 states and the District of Columbia on board. Recently, Colorado is set to become the latest member of this group of states joined together to bypass the electoral college system. Yes, that is correct, and if successful, it would give the 2020 presidential election to whoever wins the popular vote. Although it could only go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes pass the law, it remains a frightening proposition to know that this how people who frequently scream voter suppression, are in their own way suppression the vote of the citizens of their own state. As it stands, the states in the compact has 172 electoral votes.  

This is why the framers, via the twelfth Amendment, instituted the electoral college, to prevent group think and highly populated urban areas to have more say than less populated and rural areas. When we vote to elect a president, we are really selecting a slate of electors to indemnify that the candidate who wins in that state with a plurality of the votes gets all of the state’s electoral votes.  This system has worked very well.  However, sometimes as we recall from the 2000 election, the Electoral College can result in a candidate that wins the popular vote can still not become president.   Likewise, in the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only 43 percent of the popular votes. Although the introduction of a third party candidate, Ross Perot was the main reason for this, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections in either 1992 or 1996, yet he was named as President because he won an Electoral College majority in both elections.

I think democrats need to think twice before they take us down a slippery slope to re-write, changes or alter the constitution. In particular, if we pick and choose only the parts of the constitution they do not like. Although they continue to scream Russia stole/hacked and interfered in our electoral process without evidence other than Ads on twitter and Facebook, and equally contend that people are so dumb and stupid that memes made us vote the way we did, or that Pro-Beyoncé and Anti-Beyoncé were targeted to split the Black vote, they never ever consider that Hillary Clinton was just the perfect image of unlikableness (i made this word up) ever to run for the highest office in the land.

We must accept the constitution as it is. Why? Because James Madison and Hamilton really didn’t want The United States to be a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic.  They both wrote extensively about this with Madison being mainly concerned with tribes, mobs or ‘Factions’ (pro-life, pro-choice, pro illegal immigration, anti-illegal immigration, free trade, anti-trade, isolationist, globalist etcetera) that could hurt the nation by violating the rights of and having more power than other citizens based on where they lived. Specifically, he stated that such groups could possibly: “sacrificeto its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of othercitizens.”

  

This is why we need the Electoral College and why it should never be obviated from our national political process.  To suggest the opposite is infantile and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Constitution of the United States and reading of the Federalist Papers (expressly Federalist #10). Moreover, to change to the results of the popular vote to select our President would be true voter suppression.