Democratic Attack on Electoral College Would Silence the Minority’s Voice

Electoral CollegeLast week, Nevada joined 14 other states to pass a bill granting its electoral votes to whoever wins the “popular vote” across the country, even if that candidate is not who Nevadans want as president.

The pact among states—to disregard the wishes of their own citizens in favor of following the popular vote—is the brainchild of liberal progressive John Koza, co-founder of National Popular Vote, an organization dedicated to overthrowing the Electoral College. Though the organization bills itself as non-partisan, it is funded almost entirely by left-leaning donors, including the Soros Foundation.

If Nevada’s governor signs the bill, it will become law in Nevada, which will then become the 15th state—plus the District of Columbia—to join the interstate pact. For the moment, those 15 states control 195 electoral votes. The pact would only take effect if and when states controlling 270 electoral votes join the pact. This way, states joining the pact don’t have to risk overriding the will of their own citizens unless the candidate who wins the popular vote is assured victory.

The interstate pact is highly vulnerable to a legal challenge in the federal courts, as it undermines the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, setting forth our Electoral College system, which, following its adoption in 1803, has governed every presidential election since.

The prospect of a successful legal challenge aside, the leftist movement to nullify the Electoral College raises three questions worthy of discussion: 1) why have an Electoral College to begin with; 2) does America truly have a “popular vote” in presidential elections; and, in any event, 3) does the Electoral College truly disfavor the Democratic candidate?

Why an Electoral College?

To answer the first question—why have an Electoral College?—we need to first ask a broader question: is America, strictly speaking, a democracy?  Do we even want America to be a pure democracy?

In a strict democracy, the majority rules. That’s great for the majority, but what about the minority? Don’t they have rights?

A definition of a democracy attributed to Benjamin Franklin captures the point: a democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what’s for lunch.

The Founders were devoted to combatting what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” Instead of a strict democracy, where a simple majority always rules, they constructed a more lasting system of government: a democratic republic—with built in checks and balances, carefully designed to safeguard the rights of both the majority and the minority.

The Founders established a bicameral legislature—consisting of a Senate, with two Senators elected by each state, and a House of Representatives, with each state electing a number of Representatives in proportion to its population. It also led the Founders to the separation of powers principle, which like the child’s game, “rock, paper, scissors,” balances out power by sharing it among the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The Electoral College was another measure carefully designed to prevent the “tyranny of the majority.” It ensures that a presidential candidate cannot win an election by focusing only on high-population urban centers, while ignoring rural areas of the country—what liberals call “flyover country.”

A Popular Vote?

Donald J. Trump’s stunning victory in the 2016 Election, winning as he did, a commanding 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227—but with Ms. Clinton supposedly garnering more of the popular vote—has whipped progressives into an uproar, prompting their attacks on the Electoral College, including Koza’s interstate compact.

But is there truly a “popular vote” for the U.S. president?

Everyone agrees that the money a candidate raises is critical. Advertisements and grass roots efforts play a huge role in the outcome of the election. If you were the GOP candidate for president, would you devote your limited campaign resources to winning over New Yorkers or Californians? If you were the Democratic candidate, how much would you spend winning over voters of Idaho and Wyoming?

If you were a Republican voter living in New York or California, and it was raining hard on Election Day, would you bother to get out and vote, knowing your vote could not possibly matter? For that matter, if the sun were shining would you bother to vote?

In truth, there’s no popular vote in America for president. It cannot be said that Al Gore or Hillary Clinton truly won the popular vote, because there was none. No one really knows whether either candidate would have won a true popular vote, because no such vote ever took place.

Rather, the most that can be said, is that those two candidates garnered more individual votes in an Electoral College system, where the question who won the most individual votes is irrelevant, and even that claim is subject to challenge given the voter fraud in south Florida and elsewhere.

One cannot change the rules after a contest is over, and then claim to be the winner under a different set of rules that never governed. If Roger Federer prevails over Raphael Nadal in a singles tennis match, Nadal cannot come back later and say, I watched a video of the match and rescored it using the doubles lines, and, using those lines, I won!

Absent the Electoral College, presidential candidates could act as if Americans in the Heartland don’t exist. They would campaign in a small handful of states with large populations. No candidate would care what people in “flyover country” think.

Disfavor Democrats?

Ironically, prior to Donald Trump’s historic victory in 2016, Liberals rejoiced in the Electoral College—bragging that no GOP candidate could win given the “Blue Wall”—a group of 18 states and the District of Columbia[1] assuring the Democratic candidate 242 of the needed 270 electoral votes.

These states had consistently voted Democratic since George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis, a candidate who failed to carry several Blue Wall states including California, and who most Democrats now regard as deeply flawed.

Indeed, Ms. Clinton was widely touted as a heavy favorite due to the Blue Wall. In a huge upset, Mr. Trump won 304 electoral votes by carrying three Blue Wall states, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as well as a single electoral vote from Maine, a non-winner-takes all states which prorates its electoral votes.

The left’s post-Trump attack on the Electoral College, not only does violence to a foundational safeguard against the tyranny of the majority commanded by the U.S. Constitution, it defies political common sense, in two stunning ways: 1) by throwing out what historically has been an enormous advantage for Democrats; and 2) by vividly demonstrating the willingness of liberal state lawmakers to override the wishes of their own constituents on the most important U.S. election—a sure sign of advanced Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Imagine the political fallout the short-sighted sponsors of this interstate pact will end up suffering should Trump win more individual votes than the Democratic nominee in 2020, and the Blue states who signed onto the pact end up casting their electoral votes for him, even after the majority of voters of those states chose the Democratic nominee!

Regardless—and voter fraud aside—no one can say Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 because there was no such vote. We don’t know how the popular votes would have tallied had Donald Trump spent his campaign resources winning over Californians and New Yorkers or, for that matter, had the millions of GOP voters in those or other Blue Wall states known their votes would matter. Re-scoring the contest using the “doubles lines” after the fact is not a legitimate exercise.

A well-armed lamb is central to the proper functioning of a democratic republic. It’s ironic that the party who claims to protect minorities is hellbent on ensuring those minorities—as measured by state populations—have no voice, when it comes to presidential elections.

Stephen B. Meister is a founding partner of Meister, Seelig & Fein, LLP, a law firm headquartered in NYC, published author and opinion writer. Twitter: @StephenMeister.

[1] The Blue Wall states and the number of their electoral votes include: California (55), New York (29), Illinois (20), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), New Jersey (14), Washington (12), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Oregon (7), Connecticut (7), Hawaii (4), Maine (4), Rhode Island (4), Delaware (3), and Vermont (3), as well as Washington, D.C. (3).

Reprinted with permission from - The Epoch Times - by Stephen Meister

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Janyce Spikes-Myers
3 years ago

We in Nevada are attempting to recall Sisolak, the only good thing he has done since stealing the election was to veto the bill giving our votes to the popular vote. The only way they were elected was by illegals voting in Las Vegas and Washoe counties. He (Sisolak) stated that ” I don’t care about rural Nevada they did me wrong in the 2018 election” . The only two counties he carried was Vegas and Washoe, He did not carry any other county. God willing we will remove him and his cronies in the legislature, we will see come June 10th. When we can start collecting signatures.

Ivan Berry
3 years ago

The powers separated by the Constitution were: Legislative, a House and a Senate; The Executive, the President and Vice President and their Departments and Agencies; The Judiciary, the Courts,etc.; and the States who both ratified the Constitution through their Representatives as well as being parties to the Compact or contract. The States created the Constitution, not the Constitution creating the States.
Democracy in its pure form remained at the local and State level for electing House members, and the members of the House at the Federal level.
Getting totally rid of the EC would make the States even weaker than at present and much more at the mercy of the central government and metropolitan areas than now, even now they are so very much more removed from the liberty that existed in the first one hundred years since the founding.
National Popular Vote means Mob Rule, just like a hanging possee that punishes without trial. How much do you trust the Mob?

3 years ago

One would hope that the people of Nevada are lighting up the phone lines and e-mail to the Governor to stop him from signing this abrogation of State’s Rights. One would also hope that the citizens of the other 14 states that have already been stupid enough to have already passed this, minus California, New York and Illinois who stand to become the major king makers for ALL future federal elections for President going forward, should be targeting the Governors and Legislators who surrendered the rights of their state’s citizens for either immediate recall or removal in the next election. Whichever they can get done first. I know, wishful thinking on my part as most people have NO IDEA what their Governors and State Houses pass on their behalf. Apathy and willful ignorance of large segments of the population is how nations go from thriving countries into impoverished he!! holes. George Soros must be smiling from ear to ear with the success so far of this initiative.

3 years ago

What a tragic mistake it would be if the popular vote became a reality. I can see where all available funds for services and development would be spent in the cities, leaving outer suburbs and rural areas (that’s most of the country) to dry in the dust. And none of them would care. The electoral college was established to prevent such inequalities.

3 years ago
Reply to  Kim

Under this method, federal funds would ONLY go to the handful of states that actually matter in the popular vote for President. The only Senators and House members that would matter would be those from the same few states. Every other state would either get nothing or just a few crumbs to keep the political class happy. It really wouldn’t matter in those unimportant states whether the residents of that state lived in the cities, suburbs or rural areas.

Look at how under our present system federal spending, tax policy and even aid is apportioned based solely on the importance of a state’s electoral votes. Take that away from the less populated states and the whole federal spending dynamic changes over-night.

Jack Thomas
3 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Excellent and well-thought out points. But more critical than the apportionment of federal aid money to the states is this sly,
nefarious, and dangerous business of states holding important electoral votes signing on to a pact to by-pass the will of its own citizens in a presidential election. THAT is very troubling and the federal judiciary cannot allow it. The courts must strike down these interstate pacts as a violation of the Twelth Amendment, as the above article pointed out, which established the Electoral College. Without it, rural “fly-over” areas of our country are left with no voice, and the votes of individual citizens becomes meaningless.

3 years ago
Reply to  Jack Thomas

Your last sentence Jack is exactly why this entire initiative is being carried out. Socialists or Globalists have always considered the individual vote of citizens and voting in general as an impediment to being able to enact their agenda without interference from “the great unwashed”, that the ruling elite have no use for. Look to how the EU has been set-up to create a vitually unaccountable, all powerful entity in Brussels that has effectively rendered the votes of individuals in the EU member countries completely worthless beyond their own countries. Brussels sets ALL the rules and the member countries have no power to push back. That is ultimately what Soros wants to enact here. Citizens having no real say in almost anything, but forced to comply by the unaccountable bureaucracy.

Given that the public hasn’t been dumbed-down enough yet to surrender all voting rights completely, this measure is an acceptable alternative for Socialists for the short term. As it would limit voting power to only the handful of deep blue states of the east and west coasts and Illinois, that Socialists already control. Making the votes of the so-called “fly-over” states meaningless is by design in this initiative to gut the Electoral College.

Jack Thomas
3 years ago
Reply to  PaulE


Thanks for your amplification. You’re correct about the EU and Soros obviously wanting to emulate the same system here in America. God help us all if he and his co-conspirators succeed. Rather than obsessing over Russian meddling — while alarming and unacceptable — the MSM and its supporters ought to be equally concerned about underground movements to subvert the intent of our Constitution, i.e. in this instance, the Twelth Amendment and the safeguards built into the Electoral College. But of course, socialists and “globalists” embrace the latter because they’re hungry for power. Whenever they can’t win an election or a legislative initiative on its merits, they try to change the rules of the game, usually via the federal courts or through subversive campaigns backed by weasels like Soros and others of his ilk.

I’ve contacted the president, pointing him to the above referenced AMAC article, urging him to initiate an immediate federal court challenge to these “interstate pacts” as a violation of the Twelth Amendment to the Constitution which
threatens the integrity and purpose of the Electoral College.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x