The Electoral College and a National Popular Vote
Your weekly excerpt from one of my books. This week: "The Hidden History of the War on Voting"
Stopping Politicians from Choosing Their Own Voters
As noted earlier, the Supreme Court in 2019 threw open the door to political gerrymandering by whichever party can gain control of a state in an election year ending in 0 (the Constitution requires a census and reapportionment every decade). Legislation should be passed explicitly overturning this decision and providing for “good government” nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts.
The Electoral College and a National Popular Vote
The last two Republican presidents have both lost the popular vote (2000, 2016). But they won the electoral vote and thus became president.
The Washington Post reported shortly after the 2016 presidential election that Wyoming has three electoral votes and a population of 586,107, while California has 55 electoral votes and 39,144,818 residents. If electoral votes are distributed evenly among each state’s residents, individual votes from Wyoming carry 3.6 times more weight than those from California.31
On March 15, 2019, Colorado governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, signed a bill that made Colorado the 12th state (and 13th jurisdiction, including Washington, DC) to join an interstate compact to pledge the state’s elector to the winner of the national popular vote.
As conservative commentator Matt Vespa pointed out on the website Townhall, “Prior to this move by Colorado, 11 states totaling 165 votes agreed to this compact. Now, it’s 12 states with 181 electoral votes. Nothing is triggered unless this push cobbles together enough states that will grant the winner 270 votes.”
The compact is just 89 electoral votes shy of rendering the Electoral College null and void; because it takes only 270 votes to win the Electoral College, if states representing 270 electors sign on to the compact, then the national popular vote becomes decisive because those 270 pledged electors make up a majority.
Many people wrongly believe that pledging the Electoral College to a national popular vote is a partisan solution that would only help Democrats—especially with Paul LePage making declarations about the plan like “White people will not have anything to say. It’s only going to be the minorities who would elect.”32
In reality, it would end the concept of battleground states because every voter’s vote—wherever he or she lives—would count the same as every other voter’s.33 Indeed, in 1969 a bipartisan constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College passed the House of Representatives 339 to 70, far more than the two-thirds necessary in either house of Congress to pass a constitutional amendment.
While voters in swing states might protest that the national popular vote would hurt them by minimizing their voices, that is only because right now they have a disproportionately large impact on our elections and how presidential candidates campaign, even as early as the during the parties’ primaries.
The national popular vote would neutralize the Electoral College without rewriting the US Constitution. That would go a long way toward ensuring that our presidents are elected by the majority of Americans.
As the situation stands now. Any discussion about an election, much less an electoral college, is passe. Trump has installed himself as King and wanna be Emperor, and any future elections will be on his terms and at his pleasure.
Meanwhile thanks to King Donald, America is now a pariah nation and headed down the gravity chute to become a shithole country. In many aspects we already are, after Fridays disgusting performance, Now all of Europe has turned against us, Trump is an arrogant ass, he believes that our economic might is enough to have the world groveling at our feet. he is going to learn some lessons about morality.
And he thinks he can wield the armed forces, like he wields a scimitar in the Saudi Sword dance, or a saber as he did recently. He is mistaken, he has embarked on a venture to demoralize and weaken the military.
We have an emergency! We may never vote again! 2024 proved “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” ― Joseph Stalin. That's why we lost.
But on Friday, in an ambush, Trump may have put his head in a noose.
From Axios: Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), in a text to Axios, said Friday was "a bad day for America's foreign policy."
"Ukraine wants independence, free markets and rule of law. It wants to be part of the West. Russia hates us and our Western values. We should be clear that we stand for freedom," he said.
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), in a post on X, called the meeting "a disaster — especially for Ukraine," adding, "Sadly, the only winner of today is Vladimir Putin.
Impeach the SOB And Vance, the other Putin agent, too.
To succeed, Impeachment must be bipartisan. This is for both structural and theoretical reasons:
Structural: In oder for the Speaker of the House to be removed, 9 members of his own party must agree to a Motion to Vacate the Chair. A 51% majority vote is required to pass Articles of Impeachment in the House, and a 2/3 majority vote is required to convict in the Senate. Democrats do not hold a majority in either chamber, so Republicans will have to provide a significant number of votes.
Theoretical: Impeachment of the President and Vice President is effectively a rejection of the Will of the People. It invalidates the vote of electors chosen by the People in their most recent election. Therefore, its legitimacy is dependent upon a shared commitment to the greater good of the nation over partisan advantage by members of the major political parties. Anything less than that would be regarded as nothing more than a power grab by one party. Maintaining the legitimacy of the highest ranking officers in our government is essential to preserving the rule of law.