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.

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: This is hilariously idiotic

 

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.



 
 
 

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

Zero Wins and Eleven Losses – It’s Time to Replace Kevin McCarthy

Steve Scalice and Jim Jordan are the front runners… if they will do it.

Published

on

Want to influence like Jesus? Get Jesus: Master of Influence by clicking here.

Kevin McCarthy is now 0 and 11 in his quest to become the next Speaker of the House. It is time for him to give up. This is the way politics works. Some people say that the 20 people who are against him should cave, but that’s not the way it works. We live in a representative democratic republic. They have every right to determine who they want to have as the Speaker of the House. The fact is that McCarthy cannot get 218 votes. That’s just the way it is. But I can guarantee you that somebody in the House of Representatives could get to 218 votes. It’s time to find that person. Republicans LOVED it when Manchin and Sinema went against the Democrats out of principle, but now they have a problem when Republican House members do the same. The front runners to replace McCarthy are Steve Scalise from Louisiana and Jim Jordan from Ohio. PolitiCrossing founder, Chris Widener discusses the speaker of the house situation. Watch the video below:

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: This is hilariously idiotic

Continue Reading

Elections

Finding A Way Forward

Published

on

OK, Kevin McCarthy may not become the Speaker of the House. The GOP opposition has made it clear a number of times that they do not feel he has demonstrated the skill or the will to truly do deliver on the conservative vision promised. In future roll calls, will the number who voted for McCarthy begin to desert him? Will some stay the course or merely vote present? Will Kevin McCarthy keep holding on or will he eventually throw in the towel and withdraw his name rather than further divide the party and hold back the passage of critical legislation and important investigations.

If this continues, more names need to be considered. Since you don’t have to be an elected representative to be House Speaker, let’s get creative to help us find a way to move forward. Here are some options that Republicans may at some point be ready to support:

Consider going with experience. House Speaker Newt Gingrich knows how to lead and did so at a critical time in our history. He was able to work with Democrat President Bill Clinton. That is the challenge we face now. Gingrich is healthy and respected. If willing, he would be a good choice to bring forward.

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: This is hilariously idiotic

They might consider tapping a woman respected by all, Condoleezza Rice. The former Secretary of State left the political field of battle to serve America in different ways. She doesn’t need this job but has the respect of the party faithful if willing to serve. If days go by and no one wins the day for weeks, someone ought to give her a call.

If it continues, maybe McCarthy will free up a proven fighter, Jim Jordon, to take the job. He is respected and has been loyal in supporting Kevin McCarthy and, more importantly, he has the critical vision and passion for conservative issues that must win the day. He has the support of many of those who refuse to vote for McCarthy. He is humble, an able communicator on conservative issues, and will not compromise on his vision for a free America.

When they can’t find a replacement for Pope who secures enough votes, they go beyond closed doors and bring up people until someone wins the day and they send up the right smoke! It’s time for our party to go behind closed doors and start looking at options for a leader they can support. Kevin McCarthy has clearly shown that he cannot even unite the party around his leadership. That is a bad sign in a world where many party faithful have lost hope in the party’s ability to stand strong for what they have promised to deliver.

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

Jesus, Master of Influence

Chris Widener, speaker and best selling author of The Art of Influence, teaches that Jesus is the master of influence. In sixteen sessions you will learn from one of the most influential communicators how the life and teachings of Jesus Christ is the best model for how to become an effective influence that can change people’s thoughts, beliefs and actions.

LEARN MORE

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