By Nathan Barton
Two movements are currently underway that, if either is successful, will drastically change the way American government functions. For the worse.
I’ve written about one of these: the effort by Democrats in the current Congress to abolish the Electoral College. I believe that the chances of passing such a constitutional amendment are relatively small.
Now, let us consider another nasty movement. It is much farther along that the abolition effort, and with much more progress to date. It not a full frontal attack on the Constitution or its institutions, but rather more oblique, even insidious. And therefore perhaps both more dangerous and more likely to succeed.
It is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. One of their websites claims:
The National Popular Vote plan has bipartisan support and has been introduced in all 50 state legislatures. To date, 10 states and DC have passed legislation to enter the compact for a combined total of 165 electoral votes, meaning the compact is over 60% of the way to activation.
At least five more states have seen this diabolical plan passed in at least one chamber: Colorado, Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. The compact would be activated after they have states signatory with at least 270 votes in the Electoral College.Purp
Why do I call it diabolical?
Regardless of how the people of a state vote, the state government will order the electors for that state to vote for the candidates that win the most in the popular vote. Say South Dakota (as an example only) with its three electoral college votes and 300,000 voters, votes 90% for Orange Party candidate Smith and only 10% for the other four candidates on the ballot (Purple Party Jones, Pink Party Schmidt, Native Party Iron Thunder, and independent candidate White-Knight). And say that the national popular vote came out with 48,000,001 votes for Jones, 47,999,999 for Smith, 46,500,000 for White-Knight (and 2,000,000 for all the rest). South Dakota’s three electors would be ordered by the state government (presumably under threat of penalty of law) to vote for Jones, opposed by 90% of South Dakota’s voters. AND had nearly 70% of people nationwide who voted against him. (But he “won” with a plurality.)
The cockeyed logic the supporters of this compact use sounds pretty good on the surface.
Supposedly, this makes “every vote count.” And after all, we are told, we are a democracy, and democracy is good. In fact according to a lot of people) it is the only GOOD kind of government, and to be loved, honored, even worshiped. It is, as my title states, many people’s idol. We are told that instead of just a few (half-dozen to dozen) states deciding the race as battlegrounds in which the campaign is contested, all the states will get the benefits of hosting the candidates (and sharing in the bounty of election spending). We are told that it is unfair that South Dakota, with just 800,000 people, or Wyoming with 600,000, should have three votes while California with 50,000,000 people should have just 50 (or so) votes.
Claims like this ignore the reasons we have the government (or rather, the Constitution) that we do. As my parents were fond of reminding me (and we reminded our children), life is not fair. And we are not a democracy. The Fifty States (and the FedGov) were established as republics, with limited powers. And with safeguards against expanding those powers. Part of that was intended to preserve the sovereignty of the united States, each individually. Though that sovereignty has been greatly eroded, it is still an essential part of our federation of Fifty States. The idea that the expressed will of the citizens and voters of a State can be rendered null and void by the actions (votes) of people in other states is repugnant to a philosophy of liberty. Even though often breached, it is still important and has not been changed.
Secondly, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees that every vote is “equal.” The “increased” votes given to some states despite their small population were intended to offset their disadvantages compared to the larger states. If votes are supposed to be equal, the principle when fully applied could lead to a very chaotic situation, in local and state government.
Democracy all too often becomes a tyranny of the majority, and this would be a big step in that direction. A republic tempers elements of democracy by limiting power, not just of the government, but of the various parts of that government. People, especially in the heat of passion over issues, try to push limits, so that a republic degrades into a democracy and in turn into a rule by mob and emotions, leading to a situation that soon becomes dictatorship. And the headiness of victory leads to overconfidence and even meglomania on the part of the victors.
One particularly danger tendency is to constantly seek to do end runs around the Constitution. Flawed though it is, it is a bulwark against the evils of government. When you look at the list of supporters for this mad idea, you do find it to be bipartisan, but those who support it are more alike in their love of (and lust for) more government than not. When you look at the other people and organizations that support and sponsor this compact, you find them overwhelmingly neo-liberal (“Regressive” and Tranzi in many ways): the media, academia, and “progressive” institutions of all sorts.
And the supporters tell us “facts” with a lot of errors and even a few lies. Surprised?
What is the solution? Reduce the powers of government; return to a federal government of very limited and specific powers. Make the office of President less of a prize, and less essential to every political party, every interested party to every issue, and everyday life.
Restore liberty, and the “need” to “reform” the Electoral College through things like this will pretty much vanish.
(Ari Armstrong discusses the situation very well in his online article found here.)
The Price of Liberty 
In your opening statement; “Two movements are currently underway that, if either is successful, will drastically change the way American government functions.” There is a third that would drastically change it as well, and for the better. That would be to return it to rule under that Constitution as it was intended. Electoral college was in place because this is a Constitutional Republic, built upon and guided by “Rule of Law” where all are obligated to abide by the same laws. When the progs/rhinos/talking heads keep referring to our “Democracy” they are simply referring to rule by mob. Which is why they insist the electoral college is “obsolete”, so they can gang up on the lesser populated counties/states/jurisdictions, and rule by force of the collective mob.
There is a reason our Constitution and form of government was called a 5,000 year miracle. It took that long to get it right. And mostly the founders did, hence the inclusion of the ability as well as the difficulty of the amendment process.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, the movement to restore the Constitution is neither large nor well organized. I may be pessimistic in saying that such a movement would not even be 1% of Americans. What do you think?
LikeLike
You are correct in that those who would restore rule under the Constitution are not organized, nor well represented. I believe from what I read it could be well over the 1% you suggest though.
I see the main issue to be that no one capable has dared stand up due to the ridicule they might encounter, the lack of support they would get, everyone safely in their own pathetic lives cow-towing to the “rulers”, they have given up. The possible outcome doesn’t seem worth it at this point. The situation in Venezuela is somewhat the way we need to proceed in that we need an interim gov in place before voting the present criminals out of office. This is what happened during the 1st Revolution, although they had to build the gov as they went.
Read Taylor Caldwells book ‘”The Devils Advocate”, out of print but can still be found, Copyright 1956.
There are many many chomping at the bit to get the 2nd civil war started and let the games begin. Thus my belief there are many more than the 1% you suggest. That being said I see the biggest problem being the education system, or should I say, the public indoctrination system. It has been totally corrupt and only gotten worse since I attended school back in the 50-60’s. Submission and social acceptance is taught over any form of independent or critical thinking. When you get a trophy for simply showing up, it instills a why bother attitude instead of an excelling attitude. Parents and children have become drones and subjects to the state.
LikeLike
I do indeed hope that there are more than the 1% I suggested. Even with just three times that amount, there will be more hope of significant change. Can it be done peaceably? I just don’t know.
You raise a good many excellent points. Some of the problems can be (even are being) overcome. The more people home school and unschool, the better. Sadly, even private educational venues still tend to parrot the public system.
Do we really need an interim government, a shadow government? Or are we getting more and more likely (at least in some parts of the Fifty States, such as the Rockies and the Great Plains) to be able to do without coercive government and cooperate voluntarily in liberty?
LikeLike
If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that during the American Revolution only around 3 % of the people actually fought for the Freedom of The Republic. I believe this is where the term and flag lll Percenters originated. Can we return our country to it’s original intent and principles peaceably? At this point in time, with the forces against us, such as the Globalists and UN striving for a “North America Union under Agenda 21”, using the Democrats and to certain extent Republican parties as their lackeys and trench tools. I highly doubt it.
My guess (and I sincerely hope I am wrong) is that if the forces beleiving they are in charge do not let up on their incessant rampage towards total socialism and state control of all we do, there will be another Civil War or Revolution. Whatever you choose to call it, the outcome will be the same. Sooner or later, if I remember my history correctly, all tyrannical/monarchy/oligarchy/socialist/communist forms of government eventually fail. The outcome is not a pretty sight for the rulers as well as the oppressed. I’m just guessing, but a natural or man caused implosion of the grid or entire economy may solve the issue for us. The world wide economy is operating on borrowed time, and financial implosion is coming, sooner or later. Quite simply you can never borrow your way to health, and that is the worlds largest fault, everything is leveraged against everything else.
To your final point of Gov. needed in the West & Midwest. After a good number of years of thought and observation I don’t see a great need for any but an extremely limited gov. if any at all, anywhere. With the exception of larger cities people will naturally come together for the health and well being of each other. But it only works fairly well on a limited scale, outside of that, predation takes hold, where one faction believes they deserve a free ride on the efforts of others or the whole. As seen in our present march towards the call for socialism.
LikeLike
The Electoral College was to represent the people not the chosen ones. But just like everything else connected to the US Constitution, the chosen ones have destroyed it. If there is a G-D, G-D help this Republic.
LikeLike