Majority rules?

by Nathan Barton

Some PAC I never heard of called “The Majority Rules” sent me a begging email urging me to sign a petition and donate to keep the Senate from confirming Trump’s nominee to be one of the Nine Nazgul on SCOTUS.


This PAC is also called the “Voting Rights Watch,” it claims to be unaffiliated with any political party, or candidate.  But here is the odd thing: all its website talks about is that they are taking action to ensure that whomever wins the popular vote becomes the Massa, POTUS.

From their very small website:

This is unacceptable, in our democracy the person who receives the most votes should be President! … It’s time to fight back! Established in December 2016, The Majority Rules is a coalition of concerned citizens … We are dedicated to ensuring that in future Presidential elections, the winner of the popular vote will become President. We use your donations to promote state and federal candidates and initiatives across the US to achieve this. We are not aligned with any party or organization.

Nothing at all about lobbying the Senate over confirmations of presidential appointments. Nothing about parroting the propaganda of the Democratic Party and the NoTrump body (hardly a wing) of the GOP. Indeed, according to an article published at the time the PAC was set up, the PAC is supposed to lobby and support candidates for STATE legislatures who will agree to undermine and destroy the Constitution of the United States.

But its email and website read like textbook regressivism – Tranzi agitprop.

Why do I say that? Because their proposal (their official purpose to exist) is the persuade state legislatures to pass laws which in essence nullify the Constitution and push the former Republic more and more to a Democracy, speeding it on the way to outright mobocracy, dictatorship, and tyranny. To get the Fifty States to surrender the last of their sovereignty to the general government

Bold words, Nathan.  Hyperbole? Hardly.  What they are pushing to do is to have the legislatures pass laws telling the Electors chosen by the voters of their State who to vote for.  Specifically, to vote for whatever slate (President and Vice President) for whom the majority of the votes were cast on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in leap years.  Not the slate which these Electors were pledged. Or the plurality of the votes.

In other words, if South Dakota voted 80% for the Libertarian Candidate and only 10% each for the GOP and Demo Candidates, but the entire 100 million Americans who cast a vote voted 50,000,001 for Senator Porkbait (Dem or GOP, whichever), the three South Dakota Electors would all be required to vote for Porkbait. Or even if South Dakota voted 99.9% for the LP gal (or guy).

They call it an end-run around the archaic and outdated and anti-democratic, anti-voter provisions of the Constitution.

I call it just another way of gutting the Constitution.

And it COULD happen: after all, haven’t the various laws passed by Congress, regulations allowed to be put into effect by Congress, the various Nazgul (Court) decisions, and millions of words of state and local laws and regulations already gutted the Constitution?

  • Limits on Congressional power
  • Limits on Presidential power
  • The First Amendment
  • The Second Amendment
  • The Fourth Amendment, and
  • a whole lot more?

Which may, of course, explain why they want someone of THEIR faction to be put into SCOTUS – the entire idea seems to be a violation of the Constitution and surely somewhere, someone will get through the Federal Nazgul up to the nine demigods there on their podium.

But Nathan, someone says, if the Constitution is already nothing but decorative wallpaper, what does it matter? And for that matter, we know that voting is pretty much worthless: the system is rigged and the two old parties don’t have enough differences to MAKE a difference.  And whoever is in office is just a tool of the Deep State.  What does it matter?

Maybe it doesn’t.  But I’d like to see, in our current situation, at least some of the powers (and rights) remain with the States, instead of letting DC dictate EVERYTHING.  And I’d like to again see States have some chance of once again keeping a George McGovern, John Kerry, Al-gor, or Hillary Clinton out of the White House.  And I might even like the fact that the current system has some influence on electioneering taking place in more than just California, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York and maybe Florida.  Call it a silly nostalgia.  But I think we’d be in even worse shape of we elected Massa (POTUS) “democratically.” For many reasons.

The problem is not HOW we elect Massa.  The problem is that we gave Massa the power to BE our Massa, just as we allowed 535 egotistical, greedy, power-hungry men and women in Congress to be “lawmakers” and did NOT limit them to passing laws about “National Pick-up Litter Week” and the National Fossil, National Weekend Football Snack, and sending birthday cards to 100-year-old people.

AND we have continued, year after year, to sit passively (except for voting for Massa and all her minions, and the occasional protest and campaign rally) while they steal more and more power away from us.  Power over our own lives, our own choices.

Both of the old political parties have cooperated in doing this – as the old wise AmerInd said, both the left- and right-wings are connected to the same bird (a vulture, I think) But the Dems seem more obnoxious right now.  And this “Majority Rules” nonsense and website and PAC are all firmly allied and integrated with the likes of Pelosi and Clinton and Warren and all the rest.

Why do I know that?  If I were stupid enough to give the site and PAC a dime, I would do it through the website Act Blue. This cute little money-laundering site claims 2.6 BILLION in contributions to Democratic Party associated political fund raising. Enough said?


About TPOL Nathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (christian), Pahasapan, Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer.
This entry was posted in Nathan's Rants and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Majority rules?

  1. beau says:

    it has been shown that if the ‘popular vote’ elected POTUS, there are about 10 cities (i can’t recall the actual number) that would elect POTUS. this is the reason the left supports such a notion: there will never be another election that goes against leftism if their dream comes true. in the end, they support THE TYRANNY OF THE FEW AGAINST THE MANY, exactly the type RULE, as opposed to governance, they so fervently desire.

    as to ‘democracy’, it has been accurately described as ‘two wolves and a sheep deciding what will be for dinner’. the caveat has been added over time that the ‘armed sheep’ represents liberty. with these two notions, it is obvious the left wants democracy to rule the sheep and is against self protection so they can do it with impunity.

    you have hit the nail squarely on the head, Nathan: the real problem is that Massa, his acolytes in congress and his truncheon wielding apparatchiks in the supporting alphabet soup of tyrannical organizations that is the federal govt have taken power never intended and act as if it was intended they have such, wielding it against us in every imaginable way.

    finally, it has been demonstrated for all to see that no piece of paper, no document, will ever confine the twin driving forces behind all of the significant ills of humanity throughout history:

    there is a solution: divide this nation. it would be better for one half to be totally destroyed than the entire thing. i don’t want to live under the other side and they don’t want to live with what i believe. why force the union (unless, of course, the ‘union’ provides the ‘divide and conquer’ situation that all despots fervently love and use, regardless of consequences to all if they get power as the final outcome)?

    i will repeat: i do not want to live under the system and, ultimately, the country the ‘other side’, the leftists/socialists/communists, intend foisting on us.


    • TPOL Nathan says:

      Beau, thanks for supplying one of the words I was grasping for: Megalomania. The vicious character fault that causes too many people to go into “public service” to exercise their evils on many. Unlike firefighters who (usually) can sublimate a generally evil character trait (pyromania) into something that is beneficial to themselves and others. Politicians are more like those with a predilection to molest children who go into teaching (or the Catholic priesthood).
      Like you, living under the system is very much undesirable for me and mine. For the vast majority of those trapped in such a system, their end is unlikely to be as brutish and nasty as the average German under the Dritte Reich, kulaks under Uncles Vladimir and Josef, or others we know of, but there will be those. Losing half the Fifty States (or more) may be a small, acceptable sacrifice to reestablish freedom in what remains.


  2. Rocketman says:

    That goes along with my favorite line that Marx once allegedly said “I’m not a Marxist.”


Leave a Reply to TPOL Nathan Cancel reply

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

You are commenting using your 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