Democrats lies and trickery

giphy1

The State of Connecticut is just the latest state to push lies for an end-around the electoral college.

There is an organization called the National Popular Vote Compact. Its purpose is to modify state laws and require the electors of a state to be applied to the candidate who wins the popular vote for President.

The compact only takes effect when the electoral count of the states passing the law reaches 270.

Connecticut is the latest state to join the compact.  The following states have previously joined: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Washington, D.C.  The electoral count is now at 177.  Each state went to Clinton in the 2016 election.

Here is how the Democrats in Connecticut managed to sell vote stealing of its citizens:

“The National Popular Vote compact will ensure an equal vote for every American citizen, regardless of which state they happen to live in.” – Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy.

Here is how the compact’s website describes the current system:

The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes (i.e., state laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate state).

Essentially, the compact keeps the Electoral College in place – it just makes a candidate win the popular vote to win the electors.

Let me see if I understand this:  Under this scheme, the voters in the state of Arizona chose Donald Trump.  Since Hillary won the popular vote, the representation of the Arizona voters is subverted by voters in other states.  All electors are then awarded to Clinton giving her a much wider margin of victory in the electoral college.

In other words, the national popular vote determines the electors.  This is not how the founders envisioned the process.

Here is another reason offered to support the compact:

Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. As shown on the map, two-thirds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were ignored.

Polling and money drives a campaign.  The new system doesn’t change the states that reliably vote for a single party.  The 2016 election was not about the best candidate – it was about choosing the lessor of two evils.  As one pundit said, sometimes you pinch your nose and vote the party.

But both Trump and Clinton needed their reliable party states for their campaigns.  Clinton didn’t have to campaign in New York and California – two of the largest and most populous liberal states.  Combined they give Democrats 84 electoral votes.  Remove the popular votes of those states and Trump wins the national vote.

The heavy skew of liberals in California and New York  means those two states could decide the Presidency in a close race handing it to the Democrat every time. Who says Democrats don’t want power?

Suppose the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Wisconsin signed on to the compact and it was in force.  Those states would have been awarded to Clinton even through she would have lost those state’s popular votes. In this scenario, she wouldn’t have had to change a thing in her campaign.

In other words, this system would have prevented Trump’s election.  The hope is that this compact will be in place by 2020. I’m not sure they thought this through.

Speaking of thoughts not contemplated: Had Trump won the popular vote, the electors for those states in the current pact would be allotted to him.  How do you think Californian’s would react?  What would Hillary supporters say if Trump barely won the popular vote, but a much larger electoral college vote?  How would Russia play into this?

These videos would have been a lot funnier.

 

2 thoughts on “Democrats lies and trickery

  1. Why would smaller states support this? It’s suicide for them. They would never have any say in the actual election of the President ever again. New York and California would basically be appointing the President. Dumb people never bother to look deeper! Thanks for the article.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. If these people wanted to eliminate winner take all, and require proportional apportionment of electors in every state, they would sort of have a point. As it is, you’re right, they just want NY & CA picking the president every time.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s