If We Had a National Popular Vote, Election Fraud Would Become a Lot Harder ⋆ Politicrossing
Connect with us

Elections

If We Had a National Popular Vote, Election Fraud Would Become a Lot Harder

Published

on

One issue that some conservatives get, but others don’t, is that sticking to the old system where a few key swing states decide elections isn’t going to allow Republicans to become president much longer. Demographics are changing, and even if you’re an election fraud denier, Republicans are losing ground in some of the swing states. In 2012, Republicans made up 37% of registered voters in Maricopa County, to Democrats’ 28%. Now, Republicans are down to 34% and Democrats have increased to 30% (there are now as many independents as Republicans). 

 

This is why it’s overdue to start considering the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award 270 electoral votes and therefore the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

 

The battleground states used to be states like Colorado and Virginia. Democrats have made a lot of ground there — although Virginia may not be quite a lost cause if Gov. Glenn Youngkin is more than an off-year fluke — and now the Democrats have made enough inroads into Arizona and Georgia that they’re the big battleground states.

 

Many conservatives have a knee-jerk reaction to NPV, believing it would require changing the Constitution and abolishing the Electoral College, and assume it will favor Democrats since many Democrats, including AOC and Elizabeth Warren, support that similar, but critically different proposal. But none of that is true once you thoroughly examine how the compact would work. 

 

It doesn’t require a constitutional amendment, and doesn’t even need congressional approval, since the Constitution allows for interstate compacts. This is how it is gradually being adopted by several states now. There is a myth that the current method used by 48 states to elect presidents is the Electoral College. That’s just not accurate. In fact, the Constitution is completely silent on a method for states to award electors. Most states use what’s called the winner-take-all method; others, Nebraska and Maine, use a congressional district method. Over the course of American presidential elections, states have used a variety of methods. That’s federalism. And if states don’t like how it’s going, they can always withdraw from the compact.

 

Winner-take-all per state are state laws, they are not part of the Constitution, were never debated by the 1787 Constitutional Convention or mentioned in the Federalist Papers. The Founding Fathers never agreed on the state winner-take-all model, there were fiery debates over it. For the first presidential election in 1789, only three states had state winner-take-all laws.  

 

Critics complain about the tyranny of the majority while saying nothing about the fact we currently have a system that is tyranny of the battleground states. If you are part of the 69% of Americans who live in the rest of the country, it’s like your vote doesn’t even count. We’re essentially electing a president of the Battleground States.

 

Critics also contend that NPV would ignore rural areas, but the opposite would occur. None of the swing states are the 10 most rural states, so the rural states are ignored under the current system. The 10 biggest cities in the U.S. contain only 8% of the U.S. population, so under a NPV they would no longer get as much of the attention. Under the current system, whether you live in New York City or the middle of Wyoming, your vote is ignored and irrelevant.

 

Similarly, under the current system, the smallest states are ignored; only one of the 13 smallest states, New Hampshire, gets any attention, and it’s a disproportionate amount. With NPV, the rest would become relevant; would start seeing national events during presidential elections. And what most people don’t realize, is the small states lean Democrat anyway, a majority of them voted for the Democrat in all but one of the past eight presidential elections.

 

Today, with over 90% of Republicans convinced there was massive election fraud in the 2020 presidential election, there’s an even stronger argument in favor of an NPV. Those engaging in election fraud would no longer be able to focus on turning a few states; they would have to spread their efforts a lot thinner across the entire country.

 

Piling on, congressional redistricting is awarding more electoral votes to Democratic areas of the country due to counting illegal immigrants (even though they can’t vote — and if they do, that’s an entirely different issue involving fraud). 

 

Many of the most conservative state legislators in the country support it because they’ve taken the time to study it, as well as conservative stalwarts like Newt Gingrich, former Rep. Tom Tancredo and former Rep. Bob Barr. For example, in the Michigan Senate, 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats sponsored it in 2018 (the speaker killed it). 

 

So far, 15 states and Washington D.C. have passed it, totaling 195 electoral votes (Guam and other territories are not included). The compact needs states with just 75 more electoral votes for it to take effect.

 

Critics point to Al Gore and Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote while losing the election, but never bother to address the fact that Republicans weren’t running campaigns to win the popular vote in those elections; they were running campaigns to win a handful of key swing states. If they switched their campaign strategy, things would be far different. Even Donald Trump has said this.

 

I changed my mind on it after hours of research; I wrote an article against the NPV in 2011. It was a great superficial argument, loftily dropping in references to the founding of the country — and then I discovered the facts after hours of research and looking honestly at how Republicans simply can’t win under the current electoral math. I can’t ignore reality and whip up the base based on an emotional argument that vaguely and incorrectly cites the Constitution and Founding Fathers. My fear is that when the rest of the right starts getting on board, the left is going to figure out it’s not really going to benefit them and will put on the brakes.

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.


Rachel Alexander is a conservative political writer and pundit. She is the editor of Intellectual Conservative and a recovering attorney. She was ranked by Right Wing News as one of the 50 Best Conservative Columnists from 2011-2019.



  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



Elections

Interview with My Son Hunter Producer Phelim McAleer

Published

on

My Son Hunter

Phelim McAleer is one of the most courageous men alive today. He has produced many movies that depict true stories that the mainstream media tries to cover up, like Gosnell, the story of America’s most prolific serial killer, Abortionist Kermit Gosnell. His latest movie, My Son Hunter, is a viral sensation that tells the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop and the corruption of him leveraging his father’s office to do big deals with Ukrainian and Chinese oligarchs.  This is a powerful interview with a brave men, telling a story ripped from the conservative media headlines and bringing it to a man audience.

The late Andrew Breitbart said that politics is downstream from culture, and he was right. This movie is part of the Right’s effort to recapture the culture from the Left.

Continue Reading

Elections

From Our Founding to Biden, Misinformation Contorts Society

Even when truth is exposed, great masses of people never seem to find out

Published

on

The Biden Administration, aided and abetted by serial-lying senators and congressional representatives, a warp-minded press secretary, the Internet’s big tech, NPR, The Washington Post and The New York Times, and the FBI, DOJ, NSA, CIA, IRS and a variety of other federal agencies which have been weaponized against the right, often by Barack Obama, clearly are major conveyors of misinformation. Nevertheless, misinformation has long been with us.

In his book, The Dictionary of Misinformation, published 47 years ago, author Tom Burnham gives us a wide angle view of just how contorted historical ‘facts’ can be. Perhaps more alarming is that even when the truth is exposed, great masses of people never seem to find out and live their entire lives believing something else. Consider the following.

For the People, by the People

There is no provision in the United States Constitution for a cabinet; it has developed over the years as an unwritten adjunct to our system of government. Nothing in the Constitution either forbids, or specifically sanctions, the giving of advice to the president either publicly or privately, by individuals or groups. Today, the cabinet is accepted as an integral part of the American system of government.

Nothing in the Bill of Rights or the U.S. Constitution requires a verdict to be unanimous in capital, or any other cases. Nor does a jury have to be made up of 12 people, as is commonly believed. Witnesses in a court of law are not required to answer yes or no to a question that an examiner or cross-examiner poses. Obviously, via the 5th amendment, a witness has the right not to incriminate himself or herself.

Inventors or Something Else?

Abner Doubleday is considered the inventor of baseball in 1839. However, there were references to baseball in a novel published in America in 1798, and again in an 1820 novel published in London which explains the game at length as it is known today. By the way, the guillotine is not French, nor is it named for its inventor.

James Watt did not invent the steam engine and never claimed to have. His improvements of an existing steam engine were notable, such that people believed he was the inventor. Robert Fulton did not invent the steam boat, nor does he deserve the credit. His steam boat was developed 20 years after James Rumsey and John Fitch had each run steam boats successfully in America and abroad. Indeed, Fitch had long gained exclusive rights from several states for boats propelled by steam.

Fifteen years before Alexander Graham Bell’s construction of a usable telephone, Phillip Reis had invented a crude telephone in Germany. Moreover in 2002, the U.S. Congress recognized an impoverished Florentine immigrant, Antonio Meucci, as the inventor of the telephone, rather than Alexander Graham Bell who had gained vast fame and fortune by stealing another man’s lifelong work.

Thomas Edison was not the original inventor of the light bulb. He improved upon the principle others had discovered. In 1802, Sir Humphrey Davy produced an arch light. In 1844, Jean Foucault made an arch light strong enough to illuminate the Place de la Concorde in Paris. In 1860, Sir Joseph William Swan devised a crude light bulb, and in 1878, he demonstrated a successful carbon filament lamp at Newcastle, England, 10 months before Edison “invented” the light bulb.

History not in the Making

The battle of Bunker Hill was not fought at Bunker Hill. Paul Revere didn’t reach Concord on his midnight ride. What most people know of him and his ride comes from Longfellow’s poem, “Paul Revere’s Ride.” This poem begins with the famous line, “Listen, my children and you shall hear…”

Many people believe that after the crash of 1929, financiers jumped out of windows at record rates. Actually, the suicide rate was the same as in other years.

The damage reaped upon the U.S. forces in Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941 would have been greater if the U.S. Pacific Fleet had been at sea. Americans would have had little, if any cover, and instead of ships being lost in shallow water, which were raised and repaired, all losses would have been irrevocable. Author Leo Rosten noted that far fewer men were lost precisely because “they were in the harbor.”

So… the question arises, will the vast majority of Americans ever be able to cast off the shackles of the misinformation currently slung about in buckets, daily, by the self-appointed “American security state?” Unfortunately, the short answer is “doubtful.”

– – – – –

 

 

Continue Reading

 

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Our Newsletter

Become a PolitiCrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending