States Secretly Voting to Destroy the Electoral College

democracy-voteby Leigh Bravo   6/9/14
Currently, behind closed doors and under the radar, Democratic led states are deciding to change the way the United States has elected its President for the past 200+ years!

Have you, the American taxpayer, been notified of this change? Have you been given a voice in this decision? Have you seen any stories on mainstream media about how our voting rights will be changed if this law is passed?

Eleven states have quietly signed into law a new bill, the “National Popular Vote Bill,” which will get rid of the current electoral college and award the White House to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. Why did they not go through the Congress? Why have we not heard about this on the news? Why has this vote been secretly advancing under the radar?

There is not enough support in Congress to make the change, therefore the individual states are taking it upon themselves to change the way the United States has voted from the beginning of our republic and leaving public opinion and state representatives off the playing field. Could it be that the political force enacting this change feel the majority of Americans would not support changing our Constitutional voting laws? Have they decided to take it upon themselves to make the change without any press coverage and without the public being aware?

Currently, our president is chosen through the electoral college. How does this work? Each state is given a number of electoral votes based on the population of that state. Therefore bigger states have more electoral votes. Americans go to the polls and vote for the candidate of their choice. The candidate that receives the most votes in any one state is then given the electoral votes for that state. This explains why someone can win the popular vote, yet lose the election, such as Bush in 2000, who won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote by 0.5%. Does this mean that if we had a popular vote, that Bush would have lost the election? The answer is no, because money would have been spent differently by the candidates in order to obtain the votes needed to win, regardless of the method…electoral or popular.

Is changing our Constitutional voting process the right thing to do? If you could vote whether to keep our current electoral college method of electing a president, or change it to the popular vote, which would you choose? Which do you think represents the most fair outcome?

Stated in a paper by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director of the Federal Election Commission,

“Our forefathers considered electing the president by a direct popular vote. However, a popular vote was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence, but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their state, people would naturally vote for a “favorite son” from their own state or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the larger, most populous states with little regard for the smaller ones. So, the constitutional convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.”

Here is a list of the states and the electoral votes they each receive as of 2012:

Alaska: 3 • Nebraska: 5
Arizona: 11 • Nevada: 6
Arkansas: 6 • New Hampshire: 4
California: 55 • New Jersey: 14
Colorado: 9 • New Mexico: 5
Connecticut: 7 • New York: 29
Delaware: 3 • North Carolina: 15
District of Columbia: 3 • North Dakota: 3
Florida: 29 • Ohio: 18
Georgia: 16 • Oklahoma: 7
Hawaii: 4 • Oregon: 7
Idaho: 4 • Pennsylvania: 20
Illinois: 20 • Rhode Island: 4
Indiana: 11 • South Carolina: 9
Iowa: 6 • South Dakota: 3
Kansas: 6 • Tennessee: 11
Kentucky: 8 • Texas: 38
Louisiana: 8 • Utah: 6
Maine: 4 • Vermont: 3
Maryland: 10 • Virginia: 13
Massachusetts: 11 • Washington: 12
Minnesota: 10 • West Virginia: 5
Mississippi: 6 • Wisconsin: 10
Missouri: 10 • Wyoming: 3
Montana: 3

The number of electoral votes can change with each Presidential election if the U.S. Census Bureaus’s decennial head count changes. Therefore electoral votes can be added or subtracted in each election depending on the head count within each state.

The “National Popular Vote” bill has now been signed into law in 11 jurisdictions possessing a combined 136 electoral votes. They need 270 total electoral votes to bring the “National Popular Vote” bill into effect. Below are the states that have already voted for the bill that will change the way the United States elects its president and the party the state most strongly identifies with:

Distirict of Columbia (3 electoral votes) – Democrat
Hawaii (4 electoral votes) – Democrat
Illinois (20 electoral votes) – Democrat
Maryland (10 electoral votes) – Democrat
Massachusetts (11 electoral votes) – Democrat
New Jersey (14 electoral votes) – Democrat
Washington (12 electoral votes) – Democrat
Vermont (3 electoral votes) – Democrat
California (55 electoral votes) – Democrat
Rhode Island (4 electoral votes) – Democrat
New York (29 electoral votes) – Democrat

So, the question of the day would be: “If your state is on this list, did you know about it? Did your representative contact you and let you know that your legislators were making decisions that effect your vote without your knowledge? Is there a reason that only Democratic states have signed on?

How might this bill change the way we elect our President? Will it favor one party over another? There are lots of arguments for and against this change.

New Yorker Magazine writes:

“The status quo is not good for small states. It’s not good for big states. It’s not good for medium-size states. The only states it’s good for are swing states, and their ranks are shrinking. Last time, there were just nine, marking the first election in a century or two in which the number of swing states was in single digits. There are now fewer of them than there are National Popular Vote states.”

Keith Wagstaff of The Week, says,

“If the popular vote were paramount, candidates might actually visit the National Popular Vote states instead of spending all their time in Ohio and Florida.”

Professor Walter E. Williams of George Mason University says:

“Were it not for the Electoral College, presidential candidates could safely ignore less populous states,”

Gary Gregg II of the University of Louisville says,

“The National Popular Vote bill would mean ignoring every rural and small-state voter in our country.”

Morton C. Blackwell, from Virginia says,

“If the National Popular Vote bill had been in effect in 2008, Delaware would have lost 44% of its power. Rhode Island would have lost 51.49% of its power. Wyoming’s power would have dropped by 65.48%. The pattern is the same for all the smaller population states. Gainers, under this bill would be the larger states.”

If we look at the 33 states that have fewer than 11 electoral votes, each state’s percentage of the 538 electoral votes is larger than the state’s percentage of the nation’s population. This information is based on a calculation by Blackwell, however others believe that the 33 below average sized states are ignored under the current electoral system because they are not battleground states and therefore do not receive any of the campaign events in each election.

Some argue that small states have so few people that they would not attract any attention from presidential candidates regardless of the voting system used. However, others support the belief that the attention each state receives is dependent on whether it is closely divided by party not its size.

Let’s look at some interesting statistics. In general, there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country. But, in terms of people who vote, the split is about equal. However, if you have a very high turnout to the voting booth, Democrats would take the election every time. Do these numbers help you in determining if a popular vote would be more advantageous to Democrats or Republicans?

Regardless of your feelings on this topic, the most surprising element of this story continues to be the secretive way in which it is being handled. Once again, the American taxpayer is being kept out of the loop. Decisions that effect each of us are being made without our knowledge. Politicians continue to be politicians and feel they have the right to change our Constitution without any input from the American people. When will your state representatives make you aware of any changes? After they have been made!

Are these decisions being made based on political advantage? Are the politicians who claim to represent the people making decisions based on their own welfare? Will the “National Popular Vote” bill truly reflect the wish of the people, or will it serve as a tool to save some politician’s job or his party?

You decide….but be sure to contact your local representative and let them know that we demand to be informed about decisions that will ultimately effect our vote, our lives and our Constitution!
Leigh Bravo blogs at The Trumpet. • (2663 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to States Secretly Voting to Destroy the Electoral College

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I’m not fan of this plan by the states. The intent is to approach, by degrees, the popular vote for electing a president. This is the holy grail of the Left. The idea of restraints on the citizenry via a republican form of government is offensive to their sensibilities. After all, what could be more “equal” than each vote having the same weight?

    As it is now, the states are free to dispense their electoral votes as they wish. I think that most states are winner take all, but one or two states proportion them as to votes received. As I understand it, the current scheme is to have a compact between the states. If that is correct, it seems it would run afoul of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution:

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    My own view is that we should exclude all major coastal cities from voting for president on the basis that the generally poor air quality (or something in the water) has addled their brains. As it is now, it is getting to the point where quibbling about the Electoral College is moot. We are already being governed by the major cities. And the major cities lean heavily Democrat.

    I don’t think we should go to a popular vote. But how many elections would that really have changed? One or two, I believe. The real issue for conservatives is not so much the method of choosing a president but that the media is an arm of the Democrat Party and, thanks to a number of additional reasons, the country itself is moving Left. That’s why the Brad College (which excludes some or all of the big coastal cities) would be the best alternative plan.

    • Leigh Bravo says:

      I am a huge fan of having every individual pass a test before they are allowed to vote. something like:
      1-Who is the current President of the United States and what party do they represent?
      2-Who is the current Vice President of the United States and what party do they represent?
      3- Who is the Speaker of the House and what party do they represent?
      4- and for good measure…What is Benghazi??

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Wouldn’t that be great. Instead of voter I.D. we’d have Intelli-Test. And, heck, if some visiting Austrian knew the answers, let him vote! Compared to the number of ineligible people who vote now, I’d rather have an informed Austrian vote than an illegal alien or various dead people who somehow keep showing up at the polls every November.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        This is a good idea in many ways, and I will note that past surveys indicate (unsurprisingly) that conservatives do better on such tests than liberals. (The latter proclaim their superior knowledge by using rigged tests.) But if you had only a small number of known questions, it would be easy to get around. If done at the time of voting, it would also greatly lengthen lines. Many people simply can’t afford that much time, especially if they have something else to do (such as work).


    Undoubtedly this is another scheme intended to benefit Democrats, who can buy and steal votes while Republicans can’t (buy) or generally don’t (steal). One interesting problem is this: how do they determine who really won the vote? Will each state accept the word of the others? What if the appointed electors refuse to go along (this would most likely occur with Democratic electors if a Republican scores a surprise win in their state)?

    • kohler says:

      The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

      National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

      The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

      For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

      Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The problem is, how much vote fraud is there? And how much will there be when vote fraud anywhere can affect the national election? As it is, usually only a small number of states are close, and even most of those are only rarely close enough for fraud or other problems to make the difference. (Florida 2000 was very unusual that way. The problem there, as people noted at the time, was that the margin of error was greater than the vote margin.) I suspect that a fraud component of 1% is probably at the top end; how many elections have had a popular vote that close?

    • kohler says:

      There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

      With National Popular Vote:
      If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most national popular votes, the enacting state’s dedicated Democratic party activists slate of electors will become the Electoral College voting bloc.
      If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most national popular votes, the state’s dedicated Republican party activists slate of electors will become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party’s dedicated activists. At least 270 electoral votes will be cast by the states enacting National Popular Vote.

      The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

      • Timothy Lane says:

        If it looks like the Republican candidate will win the popular vote, how many Democratic states do you think would quickly change their law in order to prevent the GOP from getting their electoral votes? A lot more than zero, methinks.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          As should be obvious by now, liberal Democrats aren’t restrained by law, which they consider applicable only to their opponents. All it would take is a state run by ruthless, unscrupulous Democrats (if you’ll pardon the redundancy) and a SCOTUS with a liberal majority to ignore any such details. Ultimately, you seem to be operating on the assumption that liberal Democrats have at least a modicum of integrity and honor. They don’t.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Timothy (and one and all), I deleted most of this guy’s posts. I think we see where the ACORN money is going on this — and how creepy the Democratic drone machine is. I don’t mind a disagreement on an issue. But it’s this mindless Scientology that is so dehumanizing.

            There are pros and cons regarding how any office holder is elected. But “pure Democracy” is what these drones want not “preserving the electoral college” which was a slimy lie. And “pure Democracy” is the ability for three wolves to vote to have the two sheep for breakfast.

            There is a reason that there are checks and balances in the Constitution, including the methods that are used to elect people to office. But the magical property of the loony Left is a sort of “divine will” of the drone masses with no restraints. The “will” is whatever appetite the mob gets impassioned with at the moment, an aspect covered well in Jonah’s book, “Liberal Fascism.” There is this infusion of a kind of religious zealousness into the secular state.

            And just the nature of the way this guy spammed the board with his propaganda shows you the monstrously drone-ish methods of the tin foil hat brigade.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Unfortunately, just now you seem to have deleted one of his posts just as I was completing my response to it, which thus appears in a vacuum. Considering my comment, I don’t suppose I can really blame you.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Sorry, Timothy. I don’t know that there is any way to restore it. I’ll certainly defer to you if you want to have a conversation with this guy. That’s your call. But this is just more or less spamming and we do not exist to carry Democrat Party/Leftist propaganda. That’s my policy.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Well, “kohler want a cracker” was intended to suggest that he’s simply a parrot, so I can’t disagree too much. He has some interesting arguments, but he chose to repeat them endlessly (justifying your reference to spam), and never really answered our arguments except with such repetitions (leading to a suspicion that he either has no genuine understanding of the issue, or was simply here to parrot the party line).

                Addendum: has all this removal gotten rid of the indentation for responses? My last 2 messages were responses to you but weren’t indented.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                leading to a suspicion that he either has no genuine understanding of the issue, or was simply here to parrot the party line

                These people are bots, political mindless zealots — particularly when they are on the Left. And, yes, such zealots exist left or right. I’ve been involved in many campaigns and understand the excitement of being involved in something like this. And I do recommend the experience. People should go ahead and get involved in a campaign for something or someone that they believe in.

                But be prepared to meet plenty of profession political robots. They are people who either are just class presidents who never grew up or have some religious-like adherence to “The Cause.” This is especially true of the Left. It’s doubtful that most of the people involved in trying to change the Electoral College have the vaguest idea what it’s all about. All they know is that the Democrats want it. All they know is that it’s not “fair” that someone can win an election and not have the most votes.

                And these dumbbells will be the first to complain if they lose an election in the popular vote but perhaps had more states vote for their favored candidate. And then be prepared for these mindless zealots to start up again for some “reform” campaign to institute some new scheme that they think favors them. It never ends because Utopia never comes.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Well, I certainly have had some political involvement in the past in the campaigns of Anne M. Northup, which involved meeting a lot of people. On one occasion I signed my name to a response to the Curious Journal (I made sure I agreed with the response first, of course), and on another occasion I was able to ask her if she was related to Francis T. Meagher (her maiden name was Meagher), the noted Irish-Ameican who played a major role in recruiting and organizing the Irish Brigade (who resigned in 1863 because they wouldn’t let him take time off to do some more recruiting — the brigade had suffered extremely heavy losses over the previous year, particularly at Antietam and Fredericksburg).


        You raise some interesting points. Nonetheless, I’m troubled by the prospect of a state which votes, say, 60% to 40% for Party X over Party Y, to have all its electoral votes go to Party Y because the other states gave a majority to Party Y. If I live in Illinois, why on earth should I care about what voters in California think? And why bother to have an Electoral College at all if the vote is going to be unanimous (which it would be if “National Popular Vote” were enacted by every state)?

        It seems far preferable, if we want to elect the President by popular vote, to amend the Constitution accordingly. At least that way the voters in each state will have their wishes respected.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    There are a few things to point out here. First of all, Brad is quite right that the Constitution bans interstate compacts, making the legality of this uncertain. But each state could still independently pass such a bill. One must remember that each state determines how electoral votes will be allocated. It used to be done primarily by the state legislatures; South Carolina did this as late as 1860. Later, many states chose electors individually; thus, Maryland in 1904 cast 1 vote for Roosevelt and the rest for Alton Parker, and Alabama in 1960 had different votes for each elector (the highest total being for an unpledged elector who voted for Harry Byrd). Even today, Maine and Nebraska allocate 1 elector to the winner of each House district (although all 3 Nebraska districts are Republican, Obama carried 1 in 2008).

    I always used to favor popular election, but the 2000 dispute cured me of this. I realized that such disputes anywhere in the country would occur in any election close in terms of popular votes. Imagine the Florida dispute happening nationwide and you can understand the problem. (Incidentally, if you count the Democrat votes in Alabama in 1960 the way the party itself did in assigning delegates for their 2004 convention, Nixon would technically have won the popular vote.)

    I wonder how many of these liberal states would change their mind at the last minute (they could do so up to, but probably not including, Election Day) if it looked like the Republican was likely to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote — as was expected by many in 2000 until Bush’s decades-old drunk driving charge came out, and would have happened in 2004 if Kerry had somehow won in Ohio.

    • Leigh Bravo says:

      As usual, with the Democrats, it is never about fairness or doing what is right for the people. It is always based on what is best for them at the moment, and what will allow them to keep their jobs in politics…Tell the people what they want to hear and we keep our seats! The problem is the media always supports them thus spoon feeds the populace exactly what the powers at be want them to know. Between the left leaning press and the fraud in the ballot booth, I remain pessimistic.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        “Let us wear upon our sleeves the crepe of mourning for a civilization that held the promise of joy.” This was Allen Drury’s conclusion to his series that began with Advise and Consent, and I suspect he was right. But it’s not in me to give up hope. This no doubt reflects the same mental attitude that caused me, over 35 years ago, to choose to trust sources that argued in favor of nuclear power over the fearmongers who attacked it when I had no direct personal knowledge either way.

    • kohler says:

      The National Popular Vote bill says: “Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”

      The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.


        I don’t want to get bogged down in legalities here, but I think Brad is right and the Constitution does not allow the states to do this at all. Another objection is that your bill cannot supersede Constitution Article II, which gives the states plenary power to appoint electors. This power cannot be bargained away, and frankly, this whole proposal smacks of unsavory back-room dealing – no way to conduct the affairs of a great republic.

        As to how best to elect a President, my answer would be to choose that method which minimizes the power of welfare recipients and public-sector workers until such time as limited government may be restored to this nation.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        And if California decided to ignore this come October of some year when they realized that they would be voting for the wrong guy in the Electoral College, but that their guy might be able to win otherwise, what stops them from ignoring that agreement and going back to their old arrangement? It’s a safe bet that some such thing will happen if the GOP looks to win the popular vote but might lose the electoral vote otherwise (as many people thought would happen in 2000). And what then? Do we end up with a tangled court case decided by SCOTUS? And what if they have a liberal majority, or a majority of liberals-plus-Beltway-bandits (who want to “stand tall in Georgetown” and don’t want to rock the boat, particularly if the Democrat is a historic candidate such as the Fire Witch).

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Kohler, you sound like a well-rehearsed drone. I may pare down your spamming a bit. I’d appreciate you linking to these resources rather than spamming the board with them.

  5. Timothy Lane says:

    I notice that you actually haven’t addressed the question I raised. All you do is repeat your talking points, which admittedly you do well. So . . . kohler want a cracker?

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Kohler, we don’t do Scientology here at StubbornThings. We do not exist as a resource for the Democrat Party. As I said, if you’d like to provide a few links to your information sites, go for it. But I’ll not let this site be used as a vehicle for mass propaganda.

    Thanks for moving on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *