As I write this, the Electors who comprise the Electoral College are casting the only votes that will actually be counted to choose the next president. If history is any judge, there is a certain outcome: Donald J. Trump will be the 45th President of the United States come next January 20th.
Their votes will, despite all the sturm und drang exhibited by Democrat crybabies, demonstrate that Trump won in the state-by-state popular vote, for a total of 306 electoral votes. Hillary Clinton won 232. What is needed for election by the Electors? A simple majority of the total, or 270. That’s all. That’s the way it’s been since our founding. It’s worked out fairly well, so far.
But wait, say the losers: Trump lost the popular vote (add as many exclamation marks as you can stand here). By almost three million votes. She should be president (sob, sob, pass the tissues and the therapy dogs).
Well, don’t you worry, little snowflakes. Help may be on the way. In the form of something called the National Popular Vote. Sounds fair, to use a favorite liberal misdirection. The premise is simple. From the NPV website:
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
So, what’s the catch? Just this: all voters who voted for the candidate who loses the national popular vote would be disenfranchised. This year, all those voters in all those pesky fly-over states, even though they voted by large majorities for Trump would see their votes nullified.
The nation over the states may sound great. Until it’s your vote that’s been negated. Aside from hurt feelings, what is trampled in the dirt is the entire notion, enshrined in our Constitution, that the United States is a federal republic comprised of individual, sovereign states. Our way of voting for president is laid out, clear as a bell, for all to read and know, in Article II of the Constitution.
The National Popular Vote initiative, regardless of how many “progressives” yell and holler, will ultimately fail. Why? Because the first time it is used, it would be challenged in court as violating the voting rights of all those whose vote was changed by their states’ Electors. There would be quite a few million of them. And they will be very unhappy campers.
In theory, such a challenge could survive by the “faithless” Electors claiming that each state that signed up for this undemocratic method had used “due process” of law to deprive its citizens of their votes.
Great theory. In practice? Hell hath no fury like a few million disenfranchised citizens, majorities in their respective states. So, those who insist that we have a pure democracy, good luck with the project.
Better yet, you’ve no need to wait Why not move to a socialist paradise like Cuba or Venezuela. They hold elections where El Lider Maximo gets at least 90 percent of the votes. Ahh, pure democracy in action.