Electoral College scheme: Grounds for civil war?

Renew AmericaBy Alan Keyes

 

Though all members of Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, it’s hard to believe that the Democrats among them have any intention of honoring that oath. In their bid to establish dictatorial, totalitarian, socialist rule in the United States, Democrats all over the country are pushing a plainly anti-constitutional scheme to erase the constitutional method for electing the president of the United States. Before considering their scheme, however, we need to remember why the people of the founding generation rejected the idea of electing the president by means of a national plebiscite, in which the people of the entire nation would vote, en masse, to decide the election.

 


People who in one form or another favor schemes for socialist dictatorship push the notion that “democracy” demands simple one-man, one-vote majority rule, in which the mass of the people divides against itself to make choices for the whole. But the leading lights of America’s founding generation rejected this approach in light of the fact that schemes for democratic government based on this approach have invariably failed. Within one or two generations, they declined through the cycle by which democracy declines toward tyranny through the machination of ambitious demagogues.

Demagogic tyranny, by encouraging the machinations of conspiratorial oligarchic cliques, declines toward the tyranny of one or another of the cliques, supplanting, neglecting and usurping democratic means. Oligarchs’ warlike competition impels them to rely more and more openly on violence, and thence on organized military forces. The authoritarian character of their strategic competition shifts power toward the force organized and directed by the most effective military genius. The conspiratorial rule of oligarchs is thus supplanted by the imperial military rule of the force inspired by that genius, military rule that uses it to rule over oligarchs and the people, as a whole.

This cycle of tyrannical regimes has mostly dominated the experience of humanity, punctuated by occasion intervals in which some balance of opposing powers enforces mutual respect for some semblance of right and justice informed by the voice of reason and goodwill. During the colonial period, however, the good people of the United States were encouraged by the potential for self-government discovered by their experiments in Christian polity. Their success encouraged them to believe that people inspired by faith to accept the wholesome self-discipline that Christianity demands of individuals could establish and maintain a form of government in which the occasional respite from the cycle of governments empowered by force and fear could be made permanent. They could transform the accidental balance of powerful forces into a permanent equilibrium of self-disciplined interests.

Instead of opposing forces temporarily stymied by their mutual opposition, that equilibrium would be sustained by the goodwill of individuals, self-consciously avowed to respect a common standard of God-endowed right and justice. That standard would, in turn, inform the measures (laws) they agreed upon to maintain and support their relations with one another. Moreover, as the habit and good fruits of that deliberate cooperation confirmed its worth, these people of goodwill would continually perfect the union born of their common sense of right and justice.

This vision of government of, by, and for the good people of the United States is a far cry from the forced notion of democratic dictatorship, based on the power of the masses. This individual-minded vision assumes that people are just that – human beings, not lumps of stone or clay. It assumes that they are motivated, as individuals, by a decent sense of right and wrong. It assumes that they have a conscience that impels them to see beyond the passions of the moment, in order to appreciate the good of the whole they comprise together, and from which they draw mutually supportive aid and good fruits. Above all, it assumes the activity of individuals, informed by a common sense of God-endowed right, who act in concert deliberately, not in mindless response to the pricks and goad of fear, grievance, or prideful passion.

With this in mind, consider the method of electing the president of the United States known to our history as the “Electoral College.” It involves voting by the whole people of the United States. But in the first place, that whole is divided into individual states. In the individual states, it is divided into individual districts. And in the individual districts, it focuses on the selection of individuals who best represent the whole people of each district.

The resultant vote is national in scope. But in substance, it reflects the diverse judgments of an array of districts. The individuals in those districts are not called to choose for the whole nation. They are called to choose, from among individuals living in their own area and general circumstances, someone who will represent their area’s overall spirit, mind, and circumstances, and will take them into account when making a judgment about the whole nation. But it must also be someone they trust to make that judgment with the care and concern they themselves have for the nation’s welfare.

Because the electors are chosen state by state, each state contributes to the outcome. Because their number reflects the total representation of the state in the national legislature, each state contributes to the result according to its weight in the national councils. The balance of diverse areas, interests and concerns is reflected in the process. It is not just a matter of numbers, but of distribution. No states are neglected, and each is given its due. Even as we describe the process, the description brings to mind the equilibrium the Constitution was crafted to maintain.

Now consider what the Democrats propose to do. They want a vote by the masses in each state. They then want all the states’ electoral votes to be cast for the candidate who wins a majority of votes nationwide. This would, in some cases, nullify the votes of the people of the state, imposing the national result on them regardless of their preference. Though the liars promoting it claim that this would count every vote, it actually means this: In states that have seceded from the Constitution, if the Democratic presidential candidate wins the national vote, all the states’ electoral votes will go to the Democrat, regardless of how the people of each state or district voted. Voters in non-Democratic districts will send no electors forward to cast their votes according to their preference. Their votes will, therefore, count for nothing, contrary to the Constitution’s intention.

Because the Democratic Party is now openly committed to the imposition of socialist, totalitarian dictatorship, they have no use for the equilibrium of interests the Constitution was framed to maintain. They want domination to result from the force of democratic power, not from a balanced account of the people’s goodwill. The result will reignite the cycle of tyrannical regimes the U.S. Constitution has helped the United States to avoid. It will put us on the path of perpetual tyranny, alternating with periods of bloody conflict, characteristic of human history, and of the totalitarian dictatorships that have blasted the prospects of all the nations socialists have conquered.

Fortunately, the result they aim to achieve cannot be achieved without a constitutional amendment. The states have no lawmaking power to alter the authority of electors chosen by the people. States can regulate the manner of choosing the electors, but they cannot dictate the terms of their vote, as if the electors themselves do not exist. Such legislation is not a law; it is an act of rebellion against the duly constituted government of the United States. If they pretend to claim power as a result of this anti-constitutional scheme, their rebellion will properly be the signal for civil war.

© Alan Keyes

The Electoral College Must Remain

 American Thinker

By Elad Hakim

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., recently introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would eliminate the Electoral College.  This was obviously done in response to the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election despite winning nearly 3 million more votes than President Trump.  According to Cohen, the Electoral College is outdated and distorting.

In a recent Fox News article, Cohen was quoted as saying, “Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office.  More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators.  It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President.”

Cohen’s position is clearly partisan, will almost certainly fail, and will face stiff resistance from many smaller states.

According to HistoryCentral, “[t]he Electoral College was created for two reasons.  The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President.  The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.”  The first reason revolved around the possibility that a candidate could manipulate public opinion to such a great extent that it would lead him to secure the presidency.  In other words, the Founders did not believe that the citizens could make the right decision on their own.  Therefore, the electorate served as a system of checks and balances.  This does not appear to be as much of a concern today.

The second reason, however, is still relevant.  Generally speaking, the number of electorates  in a given state directly correlates to the number of congressional representatives in the state.  The minimum number of electorates for a given state is three.  Therefore, the “value” of a vote in a smaller state with a lower population would “count” more than it would in a state with a higher population.  For example, if a state had 90,000 votes and had three electorates, each electorate would represent 30,000 votes.  On the other hand, a large state with 10,000,000 votes and 54 electorates would mean that each electorate would represent approximately 185,000 votes.  Therefore, this system was initially used to appease the smaller states.

Moreover, Cohen’s proposal would likely be rejected by smaller states because it could invalidate the importance of their votes and dissuade people from voting.  It could also allow a small number of densely populated cities to determine the outcome of an election.  According to BrilliantMaps, in the 2016 election, Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clinton’s 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States.  Clinton, on the other hand, won 88 of the 100 largest counties (including Washington, D.C.).  Without these, she would have lost by 11.5 million votes.  These numbers are consistent with historical trends.  Many of the densely populated metropolitan areas in states like New York and California tend to vote for Democratic candidates.  This explains why Cohen and other Democrats would push for an amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

While Cohen’s proposal may find support from Democratic colleagues, it is unlikely to succeed.  First, the Electoral College is established in Article II of the Constitution.  Therefore, to abolish or ratify it would require a two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate and three quarters of the states.  Given the potential impact on various states, including smaller ones, this is unlikely.  In addition, there are alternatives to abolishing the Electoral College, such as eliminating the “winner take all” system, which deals with the method of how the states vote for the Electoral College and not with the Electoral College itself.  Finally, if the popular vote decided an election, what would happen if a candidate didn’t win a popular majority (more than 50%) and won only the plurality?  Given the prevalence of third-party candidates, this is quite likely, as was the case with Bill Clinton, who won only a plurality (43%) of the popular vote, and Hillary Clinton, who also won a plurality (48%) of the votes.  Would we then elect our president based on plurality, as opposed to a majority vote?  This could lead to problems down the road.

While the Electoral College is not perfect, it is the most legitimate system.  It is in line with the intent of our forefathers, protects the smaller states, and helps to protect against the possibility that several very densely populated cities will decide the presidential election for the entire nation

A Republic If You Can Keep It!

B7ziW2nCMAELJox

Family Security Matters

by AMBASSADOR HENRY F. COOPER

 

Anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall immediately after the U.S. Constitution was signed to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. According to Constitution signer James McHenry, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,

“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Indeed, we are a republic, not a democracy as many would claim these days. Our Founders were steeped in World History and understood that, as Plato wrote in his Republic, tyranny can arise from democracyDr. Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a European scholar, linguist, world traveler, and lecturer, wrote in 1988 about “Democracy’s Road to Tyranny.” Click here for his description of three “organic” pathways for this unwelcome evolution to occur. It is worth a few minutes of your time to read.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is often memorably quoted as saying, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Click here for a Snopes report that a more accurate quote (from February 5, 1976 – a year after Mrs. Thatcher won the leadership of the opposition Conservative Party and three years before she became Prime Minister) is:

“I would much prefer to bring them [the Labor Party] down as soon as possible. I think they’ve made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalize everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalization, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.” 

Prime Minister Thatcher’s approach to governing changed Great Britain for the better and she became Ronald Reagan’s most trusted partner in his “revolution” that reversed these same tendencies in 1980 and brought us the “Morning in American” about which I wrote in my last message.  (Click here.)

The United States is approaching that “tipping point” that Maggie Thatcher warned Britain about – and which our founders sought to avoid by how they structured the Constitution to give the States authorities to hedge against too much power being centralized in the Federal Government. And recent trends have created more recipients of government programs and resource requirements that threaten to exceed the ability of the American taxpayer to support, especially given our past growing jobless claims with no true improvement is sight, at least before last week’s election.

Continue reading

How Many Elections Will Democrats Steal Next Week?

Powerline

How extensive is voter-fraud, especially among non-citizens? Just bring up the question, or suggest we need to have voter-ID at the polls like every other advanced democracy, and the answer will be instantly supplied: You’re a racist. But as Dan McLaughlin points out over at The Federalist, Democrats seem to win a suspiciously high number of close elections, well beyond what a random statistical trial would suggest.

There’s a bombshell academic study out on this issue right now that the media is mostly ignoring (the only exception being the Washington Post’s very fine wonky MonkeyCage blog), in part because it appears in an obscure academic journal, Electoral Studies, that is behind an expensive subscription paywall, and in part because any reporter who does a story about it will be called a racist. Since I’m an academic these days, I’ve got access to the article, “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?”, by Jesse T. Richman and Gulshan A. Chattha of Old Dominion University and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

The conclusion of the abstract alone ought to set off alarm bells:

Continue reading

Dick Morris: Dems Attempting to ‘Fix Presidential Elections’

Newsmax

Democrats are bypassing the Constitution as they try to replace the Electoral College with the popular vote as the means by which Americans elect presidents, says Dick Morris.

Supporters of the initiative says it levels the playing field by giving all voters the same amount of power, as opposed to grossly empowering voters in swing states, who enjoy the most attention of presidential candidates during the height of election season.

Morris says it’s a bold-faced attempt to neuter the GOP.

“If this thing passes, Republicans will never again win a presidential race and that’s why all the Democrats are lining up behind it,” Morris told John Bachman and J.D. Hayworth on “America’s Forum” on Newsmax TV.

The legislatures of 10 states and the District of Colombia have passed laws to pledge all of their electoral college representatives to select the winner of the national popular vote, and the measure has already passed one house in 10 other states. It takes 270 Electoral College votes to control the presidential selection. If the 10 states that have adopted the initiative in one house pass it into law, 242 electoral votes would be delegated to the winner of the national popular vote.

Morris, who penned a column on the topic for Newsmax earlier this week, said that Democrats are subverting the Constitutional amendment process with their state-to-state tactics. Constitutional amendments must be ratified in 38 states.

Morris said that if presidents are decided by popular vote, urban areas in traditionally Democratic states would gain new power while the doors to voter fraud would be kicked open.

“First of all, it would [spur] the urban Democratic machines in places like Chicago and D.C. and New York that don’t work too hard at getting out the vote because the states are blue anyway, but now if the popular vote matters, they’ll work like demons in getting out the vote including committing voter fraud,” he said.

“Secondly, right now, if things come down to one state like Florida in the Electoral College, you could look at voter fraud in Florida and probably stop it from ruining the election, but if the fraud could be committed in any precinct in the 50 states and it counts in the popular vote, it’s too large a problem ever to be able to either track or to solve.”

Morris was adamant that this empowerment of urban areas through the popular vote would unfairly benefit Democrats.

“So there’s a reason that of the 20 states that have either adopted this or one House has adopted it, 18 of them are blue states… it’s because this is a conspiracy by the Democratic party to fix presidential elections for the indefinite future,” he said.

Related Stories:

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/democrats-electoral-college-elections-president/2014/04/17/id/566240#ixzz2zEIpLzi4
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

The Wheels of Justice

As my friend Bill reminds me, the Wheels of Justice turns very slow but grind very fine. Which brings me to this…………………………………………..

Judge England confirms that he will hear the motion for the Temporary Restraining Order filed by me in Grinols et al v Electoral college et al, seeking to enjoin the U.S. Congress from certifying votes for Obama and seeking to enjoin Obama from taking an oath of office until the issue of his forged IDs is ascertained on the merits. It looks like this judge is not joking. I am praying to God that the whole country will be able to finally see the original documents, which I subpoenaed  from Obama, Registrar Onaka, Commissioner of Social Security Astrue, Director of SSS Romo and Postmaster General Donahoe

…………………… Ill bet you can’t wait to find out how this one turns out. I’m not going to hold my breath. Especially, since they seem to get to the judges, but hey, that’s just my opinion.                                                                1 Dragon

Source:

Obama’s ineligibility: conspiracy and cowardice

CFP

Unless I am mistaken, it has always been a Constitutional requirement that a Presidential candidate be a natural born citizen. That is, the candidate must be born in the US of parents who are US citizens at the time of birth.

According to that definition, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, has never been eligible for the Presidency.

Continue reading