Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Electorial College’

Colorado electoral college voters sue for right to ignore popular vote

waving flagAuthored By Victor Morton – The Washington Times – Tuesday, December 6, 2016

URL of the original posting site:

A voter enters a booth at a polling place in Exeter, New Hampshire, on Election Day. (Associated Press)

A voter enters a booth at a polling place in Exeter, New Hampshire, on Election Day. (Associated Press) more >

Two members of the Electoral College pledged to support Hillary Clinton have filed a lawsuit intended to undo the presidential-election victory of Donald Trump.

Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich, two electors in Colorado, filed their lawsuit in federal court Tuesday challenging the validity of state laws requiring members of the Electoral College to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their states, according to the Denver Post. The two are casting themselves as “moral electors” who want to “vote their conscience and do their constitutional duty as intended by the framers,” said attorney Jason Wesoky. picture1

Should they win their long-shot lawsuit, it will have no effect in Colorado — Mrs. Clinton won the state and its nine Electoral College votes. But similar laws in other states that voted for Mr. Trump would also be invalid, meaning all 538 members of the Electoral College could vote for whomever they wished — at least potentially undoing the result of the election.

One member of the Electoral College — Christopher Suprun in Texas —said this week he will not vote for Mr. Trump as required, arguing that College is intended to discern the candidates’ worthiness, not simply rubber-stamp the state’s populace.picture2

Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams, a Republican, vowed Tuesday to defend the state’s electoral-college law.

“Instead of honoring the will of the Coloradans who voted for them, these two faithless electors seek to conspire with electors from other states to elect a president who did not receive a single vote in November,” Mr. Williams said in a statement.

“Make no mistake, this is not some noble effort to fight some unjust or unconstitutional law; rather, this is an arrogant attempt by two faithless electors to elevate their personal desires over the entire will of the people of Colorado. And in so doing, they seek to violate Colorado law and their own pledges,” he said in a statement, according to the Post.

How Abolishing the Electoral College Would Destroy the Power of the States

waving flagAuthored by Jarrett Stepman / / November 28, 2016

Abolishing the Electoral College would radically undermine the idea of federalism. (Photo: Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters/Newscom)

Nearly a month after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in this year’s presidential election, progressive groups and activists are attempting to undermine the result along with fundamental institutions created by the Founding Fathers.

Clinton appears to have won the national popular vote in 2016, primarily fueled by massive landslides in populous Democratic states like California and New York. This has sparked efforts to do away with the state-based and not entirely democratic Electoral College.

Though a huge part of the anti-Electoral College push is sour grapes in the wake of a surprise electoral defeat, it serves the broader interest of the progressive movement’s goal to both delegitimize the incoming administration and subvert the idea of federalism as enshrined in the Constitution.

Electoral College Worked in 2016  

The Electoral College was carefully designed by the Founders after lengthy deliberation at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The design is this: Americans don’t cast their vote for president, but instead for electors pledged to their preferred candidate. Each state has a set number of electors based on the total number of representatives and senators. You can read about why the Founders created this seemingly complex system here.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, who was fairly popular with progressives just a week ago, supported the Electoral College process in Federalist 68. He said that “if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”

But a number of prominent Democrats have ignored Hamilton and called for an end to the Electoral College post-election.

Opponents of the Electoral College claim that the institution is fundamentally flawed. The fact that the winner of the most recent presidential contest didn’t have the highest total vote further demonstrates why it needs to be scrapped, according to their logic.

This narrative couldn’t be farther from the truth, as the issues surrounding the election prove exactly why the Electoral College is such an excellent system for the United States.

For instance, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is leading a movement to recount votes in three key states that Trump won: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This was in part justified by the idea that Russia had tampered with the election.

The recount process will likely be messy, but it would be vastly more complicated if America had to undergo a national as opposed to state-level recount. Votes have trickled in for the last month, and it is possible that without the state-based system it might still be unclear who the next president would be.

As ugly as the 2016 election was, it would have been far uglier without the moderating, stable process afforded by the Electoral College.

Having states conduct their own elections is a strength of our system, not a weakness. For instance, without the Electoral College and respect for state powers, it would be difficult for America to experiment with solutions to prevent voter fraud. This should be a priority for those suddenly concerned about voting integrity.

Assault on Federalism

What is lost in the Electoral College debate is the underlying attack on America’s cherished and inherited idea of federalism.

The Founders in their wisdom designed this republic with the intent of checking ambition with ambition, and delegating specific powers to both the national as well as state governments. They created a nation in which states could operate independently, experimenting with different policies and laws to fit their people.

The elimination of the Electoral College would be just another blow to the role of the states in the American system of government. No longer would presidential candidates have to appeal to the farmers of rural Iowa alongside the bankers of urban New York. They would be incentivized to campaign directly to the interests of the largest population centers alone.

The reasoning used to abolish the Electoral College could easily be applied to some of the most important aspects of America’s constitutional republic.

If the Electoral College is simply an ancient, undemocratic, and defunct relic of the Founding, then why isn’t the Senate? After all, treating the states equally and allowing them only two senators regardless of population is silly if one thinks the states hold no special place in our system. One writer was open about this in a Washington Post op-ed calling for abolishing the states entirely.

“Times have changed, and we need to rethink the notion of the ‘United States of America,’” Lawrence R. Samuel wrote in The Washington Post. “Our states are no longer culturally diverse regions with their own respective identities; rather, they are artificially constructed geographic entities that certainly would not be formed today.”Leftist Propagandist

Samuel concluded:

A federation of states was a wonderful idea in the late 18th century, but represents an unnecessary and costly burden in the early 21st. Two layers of government—federal and local—offers a cleaner, more sensible, and much more affordable system than our current one …


This is the essential issue at the heart of the Electoral College that extends far beyond the results of a single election.

The left wants to fundamentally change the system of federalism so venerated and protected by the founding generation. But those who believe that the United States was built on timeless ideas about man’s relation to man should look to preserve the system that allowed America to rise to the status of a superpower while preserving individual liberty.


This is the Latest Dirty Liberal Plan to Go Around the Constitution

In 2000, George W. Bush won the election to the office of the presidency fair and square and completely in-line with the Constitution. Although he lost the popular vote by 0.5%, he won the electoral college votes by a margin of 271 to 266. Contrary to what many people believe, the election of the president and vice-president are both determined by votes from the electoral college. Still sulking from that loss, and perhaps looking for a back-up plan to their voter fraud methods, progressive left Democrats are ramping up their efforts to implement a new plan. They want to circumvent the Constitution by ditching the electoral college. Their movement is called the National Popular Vote. (PLEASE GO TO THIS LINK AND READ THAT REPORT)

Tyranney Alert

The attempt to ditch the Constitution, for what essentially amounts to mob rule, began long before the 2000 election. In 2006, Phyllis Schlafly wrote an article for the Eagle Forum on The Subversive Plan to Ditch the Constitution(PLEASE GO TO THIS LINK AND READ THAT REPORT)

A plot is afoot to change our constitutional form of government by ditching the Electoral College. John Anderson, Birch Bayh and John Buchanan, three losers who were defeated in the 1980 Reagan landslide, are scheming to change our Constitution without complying with the amendment process.

Our Constitution requires that a president be elected by a majority of votes in the Electoral College, with each state’s vote weighted based on its population. But some who took an oath to defend our Constitution are plotting to undermine its essential structure by a compact among as few as eleven of the most populous states.

She continued by explaining the negative impact such a change would have on the vote of every day Americans.

The elimination of the Electoral College would overnight make irrelevant the votes of Americans in about 25 states because candidates would zero in on piling up votes in large-population states. Big-city machines would take over, and candidates from California or New York would enjoy a built-in advantage.

The Electoral College provides an essential safeguard against the democratic factionalism decried by James Madison in Federalist 10. The Electoral College ensures that no single faction or issue can elect a president because he must win many diverse states to be elected.

The NPV slogan “Every Vote Equal” is stunningly dishonest because the NPV proposal is based on legalizing vote-stealing and on changing the rules of presidential elections by a compact of as few as eleven states instead of the 38 states needed to amend the Constitution. NPV should be repudiated before it goes any further.

Not surprisingly, the states that have quietly worked to implement a plan to eliminate electoral college votes are all blue states.

The latest to join in on this ‘National Popular Vote compact’  is New York. According to, the Empire State is joining with California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in an agreement to award their electoral votes based upon the winner of the national popular vote. With New York’s votes in the mix, the far-left progressive plan to go around the Constitution has 165 of the 270 votes needed to pull off such a devious scheme. The ramifications for such a change are huge.

According to FOX News digital politics editor Chris Stirewalt this plan is one that will impact rural America and ‘subvert the will of the Constitution and the founders.” 

“This is disempowering to rural America and empowering to urban America,” he said, explaining that it amounts to a “hack” of the Constitution by people who don’t believe in the Electoral College.

Since there is not enough support in Congress to change the Constitution and officially end the Electoral College, this plan would allow popular vote advocates to work around it.

Stirewalt pointed out that this plan is part of a larger trend on the part of “frustrated” liberals who haven’t been able to bring about the changes they want.

“They are simply taking them. They are simply doing it and if people dissent and if people complain and if the stodgy, old Constitution gets in the way, if the fussy old Whigs in the Electoral College complain about it, too bad. Because they’re gonna hack the code and they’re gonna find a way to get what they want,” he said.

Remember the doozy of a lie that Obama told last week when he claimed ‘the Constitution is still intact.’ With Barack Obama as president and the left so power hungry that they will demonize every day Americans and subvert the system of government set up by our Founders, the Constitution is not intact; it is under attack. The left has long worked pervert the history of America to make people believe that the United States was set up as a democracy. It was not. As Stirewalt said, “the United States is not a democracy. This is a [Representative] Republic.”

There is a difference.

Devious election plot bypasses Constitution Strategy takes 36 states out of voting decision


author-image Aaron Klein About | Email | Archive

Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.

The National Popular Vote effort, which could see only 14 states – those with the largest populations – decide the presidency for voters in all 50 states, is fully partnered with a George Soros-funded election group.

The group, the Center for Voting and Democracy, received original seed money in 1997 from the Joyce Foundation, a non-profit that boasted President Obama served on its board at the time of the grant. Obama was a board member from July 1994 until December 2002.

The National Popular Vote, or NPV, is run by individuals with a history of support for the Democratic Party, WND found.

Last week, the Washington Post reported NPV is “now halfway to its goal of electing future presidents via the popular vote, after Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (D) made his state the latest to sign on.”

The Post story described NPV as a campaign seeking to “get states that comprise a majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College –270, to be precise – to agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.”

The states will not be required to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner until NPV has signed up enough states to garner 270 electoral votes.

The Founding Fathers firmly rejected a purely popular vote to elect the president because they wanted to balance the power of the larger states against the smaller.

The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an election of the president by direct popular vote and election by Congress.

Now the NPV effort could change the way Americans vote without amending the U.S. Constitution. The plan simply requires that enough states sign up by voting in their own legislatures and then having their governors approve.

It takes two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the Electoral College.

To bypass the constitutional amendment process, NPV minimizes the number of states that would need to agree. Instead, once enough states agree to allot their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, the Electoral College becomes irrelevant.

With the addition of Rhode Island to the NPV effort, the pact now has nine states plus the District of Columbia for a total of 136 of the 270 electoral votes needed. The other states signed up are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Vermont and California.

NPV is partnered with FairVote, a project of the Soros-funded Center for Voting and Democracy.

FairVote’s website expounds on its relationship with NVP:

FairVote advocates for a national popular vote for president, and has nurtured and supported the National Popular Vote plan to ensure that every vote for president is equally valued no matter where it is cast.

FairVote’s executive director Rob Richie co-authored Every Vote Equal, a book explaining how the National Popular Vote plan would work and why the United States desperately needs it, and Fairvote regularly works with advocacy leaders at the National Popular Vote organization to assist in getting to important legislation passed.

Richie, executive director of FairVote since he co-founded it in 1992, is also a member of the civil society committee of the Soros-led Bretton Woods Committee, which openly seeks to remake the world economy.

Richie’s book “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote” was co-authored with the NPV’s founder, John R. Koza.

In a Dec. 15, 2008, Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Jonathan Soros, son of George Soros, wrote that it was time to junk the Electoral College.

Soros’s Open Society Institute funds the Center for Voting and Democracy, where FairVote is based.

The center’s website notes the group was kick-started in 1997 with two grants – one from the Open Society and another from the Joyce Foundation.

With Obama on its board, the Joyce Foundation also funded the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute; the National Council of La Raza and Physicians for Social Responsibility, among numerous other radical groups.

Meanwhile, the NPV leadership is comprised of Democratic Party supporters.

The organization’s chairman and major funder is John R. Koza. He was the co-founder, chairman and CEO of Scientific Games Inc., where he co-invented the rub-off instant lottery ticket used by state lotteries.

Koza, who has reportedly pledged $12 million to NPV, previously gave tens of thousands of dollars to various Democratic Party committees and liberal candidates and was an Al Gore elector in 2000, the Weekly Standard reported.

Another pledged NPV leader is Tom Golisano, founder and chairman of Paychex, the nation’s second largest payroll and human resource company. He co-founded the Independence Party of New York in 1994 and ran as the party’s gubernatorial candidate.

Golisano is a registered Republican, even though he supported John Kerry and gave $1 million to the Democratic National Convention in 2008.

NPV’s secretary, Chris Pearson, served in the Vermont House of Representatives in 2006. In 2005, he was director of the Presidential Election Reform program at the Soros-funded FairVote.

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: