There is a very dangerous movement that is going to heat up again now that Hillary lost the electoral college but won the popular vote. The leftists call the college a “relic” and they are doing their best to send out misinformation about why we have an electoral college.



People might support abandoning the college but only if they don’t understand why we need it. The college is a safeguard against voter corruption and it does give smaller states a say in the democratic process in our Republic. Without it, heavily populated regions of the country would determine the election, as they do now in New York as an example, would have no say. In New York, all our electoral votes go with the city which is almost 100% left because the electoral votes are not divvied up, they are lost in the process. Long Island and Upstate lose their votes and their impact.

The problem is not the electoral college in our presidential elections. The real problem is the fact that almost all states do not count the votes of other regions.

Eliminating the college would create the same problem on a grander scale. I will give you an example. George Soros’s son Jonathan and two eccentric businessmen have a movement that could succeed and it would destroy the electoral college. It’s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

If it were to become law for a compact of some states or all (and it is dangerously close to a compact of 11 states that have voted for it) states that sign the compact will unite in large clusters and go with the majority of votes. If all 50 states sign, all would go with the majority of votes, thus gutting the electoral college, which is the end goal of Mr. Soros.

It’s an end-run around the Constitution and their would be lawsuits but their lawyers believe they can get it through though Congress might have a say legally.

It warps the electoral college into a system by which states who agree to form a compact share all their electoral votes within their group and are forced to give their votes to the candidate with the largest number of popular votes within the compact.

The majority of votes are in the urban areas and they would determine the outcome of the election. It actually gives fewer people the vote as in New York and California – the red votes are not counted because the states are predominantly liberal and leftists. The same in Texas where the blue votes are lost.

If you look at this map from the election this year and look by county, you will see the majority of blue are urban areas. They are awash in a sea of red but if the compact were accepted by all 50 states, they would go with the blue and the sea of red would be ignored. Hillary would be president.

To explain it another way, check out the map below for one very reasonable scenario. Imagine a compact with liberal states, one conservative and a couple swing states. All the donors/ACORNers will descend on the populated areas who will win and drag the conservative and swing states with them. The eleven states in this scenario, pictured on the map, will carry the necessary electoral votes to win the election.

That is how an election can literally be won by 11 states, leaving the other states disenfranchised with no chance of having their votes counted – they are forced into giving their votes to the state/s that come out ahead. If the 11 states include liberal, one conservative, and some swing states as in this scenario, the swing states and conservative states will be forced to hand over their electoral votes to the liberal winners simply because they had the largest voter count – but who was voting?

All the electioneering can be done in the handful of states and all the ACORN organizers can focus on the handful of states. The election will be decided by the liberal cities where the heaviest concentration of people reside.

Ending the electoral college or gutting it as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (aka NPV or NPVIC) would do inflicts serious damage to our Constitution and our voter protections.

It is one of the most dangerous threats to our Republic and few know about it, partly because it’s a dry topic. People go catatonic when you say you want to explain the NPVIC and the electoral college.

If they are successful, we no longer have a Republic, we will have a democracy.

Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will never refer to our form of government as a Republic. They either call it a democracy or a constitutional democracy because that is what the left wants it to be.

Our Founding Fathers built a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has elected or nominated a president rather than a monarch or a dictator. They built a Republic also because it protects us from the tyranny of the collective.

According to a number of civic websites on the Internet, in contrast, a constitutional democracy is a governmental system that is based on popular sovereignty.

In a constitutional democracy, the structures, powers as well as limits of government are set forth in a constitution.

Most rights within a constitutional democracy are also balanced by responsibilities and order and that is an important point. The balance of our Bill of Rights would be achieved according to the beliefs of whoever is in power. For example, if a leader thinks certain speech is offensive, that leader could limit free speech.

We saw an example of that type of governance – rule by emotion – when Justice Sonia Sotomayor went on a mindless rant in favor of Affirmative Action in a Michigan case before her. Her entire argument was not based on law, it was based on ideology and her emotions. Affirmative Action helped her personally and her response in the dissenting opinion was based, not on law, but on her personal feelings. Her feelings excluded the fact that someone more able was displaced to give her that opportunity.

Both Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were chosen by Barack Obama to rule by emotion.

In a constitutional democracy, the authority of the majority is limited by legal and institutional means so that the rights of individuals and minorities are respected, according to the Center for Civic Education. It’s the same with the electoral college. It protects the rights of the minority of voters in states, whether they be right or left.

In other words, democracy is not about rule of law so much as it is about those in power deciding who is being treated unfairly with the government then responding unilaterally to right the alleged wrongs. These are social justice and disparate impact theories straight out of Marx.

Constitutional democracies end up as dictatorships of some kind eventually if one is to go by history. This is another reason the Founding Fathers put a Republic in place as opposed to a Democracy.

We saw in the Wikileaks emails (here and here) that the left wants to take over, they clearly say so in documents and PowerPoint presentations attached to emails. They want control of all media, all local, state and federal governments and they want a one-party system.

Destroying the electoral college is more of the same and, unfortunately, through clever semantics, they’ve been able to bring some Republicans along and it is a bipartisan effort.