The Electoral College continues to be under attack by Democrats and the media. In a recent article over at CNN, Zachary Wolf described a new push to undermine the Constitution and Electoral College through an Interstate Compact. The idea is that a majority of states would sign onto the pact and award it’s delegates to the popular vote winner. This gives a significant advantage to those living in the more popular areas as opposed to those living in rural areas.
Marc Schuman has a great write up on the Electoral College and how/why it was designed as it was. He discusses what is needed to change the Electoral College and the truth behind the fact that many of the small states will not be interested in changing. Why? Because they actually have a voice under the Electoral College system.
Under the proposed pact, if you and your state vote for one candidate and that candidate loses the national popular vote, your vote for your Electoral College representation will automatically change to the one who won the national vote. This system gives new meaning to vote changing in my opinion. It does not hurt anyone from the large states, but is a certain game changer for those from smaller states.
For example, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont or Wyoming would no longer matter in national elections. In fact, unless your state has 14 or more Electoral College votes, your vote would not matter at all. California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas are all that’s really needed to win a Presidential election. If a candidate can win those 11 states, the other 39 states don’t matter.
If you were able to convince a few of those states to break away, states with 10 or more electoral votes would still be the only ones that matter. In that instance, you could add Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. In adding 10 more states, only 21 states votes matter to decide the leader of the country.
Zachary is really quick to call out that this would delight Democrats who reside in a lot of the heavily populated areas in this larger states. Large cities, which are heavily populated with Democrats, would be able to shape elections. A great example would be Texas which voted by nearly 1 million people in support of President Trump. The voice of those millions would be pointless under this pact as all of those votes would have went to Hillary Clinton. Another great comparison is the election results in a state like New York. In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 2 million votes, despite losing the election in the majority of New York counties.
Democrats have tried to blame President Trump for not accepting election results and put the focus on Republicans. In fact, the Democrats are playing the same “Change the Rules” game that they do every time they lose. We cannot let them continue to undermine the Constitution and attempt to undermine our democracy, just so they can get their way.
You can contact JD through the Liberty Loft website or follow JD on Twitter.