America the beautiful dumb



America has faced three life-or-death crises:  The Revolution, slavery and the “Civil War”, and progressivism/liberalism.  We emerged victorious from the first two.  I think we’ll lose the third.

In 1913 with our first progressive prexy (Woodrow Wilson), a Democrat-controlled House and a Democrat-controlled Senate we amended Constitution to obliterate the concept of subsidiarity by no longer having states choose their two representatives to the upper chamber of the U.S. Congress, the Senate.  This dumbed-down the Senate, thus benefiting Democrats.

1960s instituted The Great Society including its War on Poverty which bought gobs of votes for Democrats from people who now vote for a living rather than work for a living.

1980s-present encouraged the immigration of uneducated-unskilled Latinos and Hispanics while discouraging, indeed banning, immigration by hard-working self-sufficient educated-skilled Asian scientists and engineers, thus benefiting Democrats.

2014 the New York State Assembly and Senate voted for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would select New York’s 29 electors to the Electoral College based on the national popular vote.  If signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, that would make 160 of the 270 necessary to implement the change.  Today the biggest impediment to voter fraud in presidential elections is that serious monitoring need only be done in battleground states where outcomes might be close.  NPV would explode the opportunities for voter fraud, thus benefiting Democrats.

Also 2014 — note that the pace has quickened to warp-speed — Attorney General Eric Holder in another move to have the “federal” government plunder subsidiarity with a top-down move is seeking to overrule states’ disallowing convicted felons from voting in federal elections.  Why, you ask?  Researchers have discovered that three-fourths of America’s convicted murderers, rapists and thieves are Democrats.

The latest progressive/liberal gambit moving toward the 2014 midterm elections is pot.  Among young voters who skew Democrat they are much more likely to go to the polls if either legalizing medical or recreational  marijuana or both is on the ballot.  Democrats are moving to do just that in many states.  In addition to getting more Democrats elected, they salivate at the thought of more tax revenues so bigger government.

In a mere 225 years America has gone from a fiercely-independent people to one where a substantial majority want a big national government in control.  When asked whether they’d rather make their own decisions about investing in their retirement or have the U.S. Government do that for them, a substantial majority of Americans chose the latter.  We the People have plummeted from “Give me liberty or give me death” to, if McDonald’s runs out of fries, We call 9-1-1.

About these ads


Filed under America implodes, business, culture, economics, education, law and jurisprudence, morality versus law, philosophy, politics

13 responses to “America the beautiful dumb

  1. oldgulph

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

    National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

    The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

    Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

    • Very well-researched, well-thought, well-reasoned, and well-written argument, oldgulph. Thank you.

      Of extreme importance to the Founders was checks and balances, separation of powers, among We the People, the states, then the three branches — legislative, executive, and judicial — of the federal government. They certainly never ever intended a democracy.

      A democracy is a vote among two lions and a gazelle on the dinner menu. A majority – even a slight one — can abuse a minority — even a substantial one. Indeed, there is now and never has been a Constitutional right to vote in federal elections. Never.

      The Founders sought to strictly limit the power of the U.S. Government, so, for example, in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution are eighteen enumerated powers of Congress, so no law MAY be passed which does not comport with those eighteen. All other powers are left to the states and to the People. For example, how those within states get to select officials for federal office is the purvue of each state’s legislature with execution and ratification of the process in the hands of each state’s secretary of state.

      I would contend that the Constitutional amendment of 1913 to stop having state legislatures choose its two U.S. Senators made the states LESS powerful, and the whole of our governance less-balanced, less-checked. NFP would be even more damaging.

      The Founders thus created a Constitution that combines democracy with federalism (states’ rights) and republicanism (deliberation and compromise). That is how We the People elect presidents.

      Incidentally, you assert, oldgulph, that all states are winner-take-all. That isn’t true, though where those who allocate electors proportionately, Colorado for example, self-diminish the motivation of candidates to woo them.

      I here iterate my point about voter fraud. Every four years there are about a dozen battleground states. More than three-dozen states, then, can be predicted to go either one way or the other, almost no chance for the other guy. NPV means that a fraudulent vote in any precinct in any district in any state can distort the outcome and its legitimacy. Under the current system monitors can be dispatched to, say, three-dozen precincts. Under the one you propose that becomes thousands.

      Thank you, oldgulph, for coming and for commenting so eloquently.

  2. oldgulph

    I didn’t mean to say that all states are winner-take-all. Maine and Nebraska use a congressional district winner-take-all system. No states allocate electors proportionately.

    Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

    When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

    The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

    Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

    The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
    National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

    • The day before yesterday the New York state assembly and state senate approved a bill which would have its 29 Electoral College electors all vote for whomever won the NATIONAL popular vote. That — if Governor Cuomo signs, which is highly-likely –brings the total electoral votes nationwide committed to this undermining of the Constitution to 160, that of the 270 needed to circumvent the Constitution.

      • oldgulph

        Actually, many reports have errors in their math. The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, and large states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. If Governor Cuomo signs, that adds 29 electoral votes, totaling 165. That would bring National Popular Vote to 61% of the way of states again using their plenary and exclusive power in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to to decide how to appoint their own electors.

      • Interesting and enlightening, oldgulph. So some states — those which pass NPV — would select electors to the Electoral College, electors who will vote for whomever won the majority of votes nationally. Other states — those which don’t pass NPV — would presumably continue to select electors to the Electoral College based on whom won the majority of popular votes in that state.

        And this would not technically violate Article II Section 1. Can you explain to me, oldgulph, what has motivated those who crafted and have supported NPV?

  3. oldgulph

    Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    • Most Americans, oldgulph, can’t name a single U.S. Senator or a single Justice of the Supreme Court. Most American cannot name the century in which the Civil War was fought. Most American believe that the sun revolves around the earth.

      Most Americans now believe they are thinking when they are actually just feeling. America was designed to operate under the rule of law, not the rule of a majority or the rule of man.

      • CW

        Excellent response, DrPete! You’re characterization of “most Americans” is spot on correct. The ignorance and apathy is beyond astounding.

        I find this discussion fascinating and am a bit embarrassed to admit I never heard of the NPV initiative. I will have to do a lot more thinking on the matter to engage intelligently in the discussion but I will say this: When it comes to a choice between what the brilliant men who founded this nation had in mind and what the liberals of today envision (and I may be premature but this seems to be a left-leaning initiative), there is no contest for me. The Founders always attempted to do what was best for the country and fairest for the people. The Left ALWAYS works to do secure it’s own power. There is no exception to that rule.

        I don’t think it’s any coincidence that all of the states that have signed on so far are blue states, and that’s enough to scare me. Clearly the election of 2000 is still fresh in their minds, but I’m guessing that the first time a republican wins the popular vote their new-found interest in making every vote count will be quickly forgotten as they scream “Foul!”

        It’s also disturbing that they so readily admit that this is a means of sidestepping the formal process of amending the Constitution because they know how difficult that would be. It would involve having a debate about the process on a nationwide level, with people being subject to hearing both sides, pros and cons, and it would require a large majority to pass, which should not be a problem if it is such an obviously good idea as it’s being touted.

  4. CW

    Great post, DrPete. You’ve summed the situation up very well.

    Liberalism is the undeclared war of our time.

    • Thank you, CW. It is the progressivism brought to us by mostly-German philosophers at the beginning of the 20th century, and adopted by those who see themselves as smarter than everyone else, and desiring, therefore, to run the RAM’s (raggedy-assed masses’) lives.

      FDR liberated the term “liberal” from “liberty lovers” in 1932. Then the 1960s brought us liberalism (culture rot), so hence my term “progressivism/liberalism”.

      • CW

        Liberals, progressives, …. they routinely change their labels so as to disassociate themselves from the stench of the havoc they wreak.

        I say we just call them “liars” from now on.

  5. Pingback: URGENT: The National Popular Vote Scheme - 'Nox & Friends

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s