This State Passes ‘National Popular Vote’ Bill Trying To Upend Electoral College – Here’s The 411

This is why it is so VERY important for every American citizen to both know what the Consitution says, as well as WHY the Framers chose that system.

It’s so simple that (properly explained) a child can understand it, yet so profound that many ‘educated’ politicians think they’ve got a better way.

Spoiler alert: They don’t.

Could the formal names of our two national parties lay out the ideological difference between them any more clearly? The short answer is ‘no’. Here’s why:

The Nevada Senate approved Tuesday a National Popular Vote bill on a party-line vote, sending the legislation aimed at upending the Electoral College to the governor.

Assembly Bill 186, which passed the Senate on a 12-8 vote, would bring Nevada into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement between participating states to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote.

If signed as expected by Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak, Nevada would become the 16th jurisdiction to join the compact, along with 14 states and the District of Columbia. The compact would take effect after states totaling 270 electoral votes, and with Nevada, the total would reach 195.

While the effort has been billed by organizers as bipartisan, Democrats have embraced the NPV in the aftermath of President Trump’s 2016 victory, which saw the Republican win the electoral vote but not the popular vote.
Source: WashingtonTimes

Why is that a bad idea? Here’s a graphic to spell it out in stark terms:

Republicans want to secure and maintain the Constitution as written, and the separate-but-equal branches of government each playing their own role, with a deliberate array of checks and balances.

Similarly, there is to be a balance between the fifty representative states, that their competing interests are properly recognized and implemented by the government representatives sent to DC, otherwise, the various states (especially the smaller ones) would never have agreed to the terms offered in the first place.

Why fight a war with the British for the right to be heard by their legislators only to be ignored by a NEW ruling class from New York or some other heavily-populated state?

Democrats, still stinging from the Hillary defeat, are actively calling for the end of the Electoral College. And some states are trying to cheat their way around it by assigning their votes to the winner of the Popular vote REGARDLESS of their own state’s voting record… essentially giving disenfranchising their own state.

They are looking for direct democracy. The Framers — intentionally — were NOT.

Contrary to catchy slogans, memes and other slick forms of electioneering, the government of the United States was never intended to be a pure democracy. In fact, most of the institutions today’s activists complain about were designed to thwart the pernicious effects of too much democracy. They’re anti-democratic by design. Rather than flaws that require remedy, these institutions were (and are) essential safeguards for individual liberty.

The Framers knew that in its pure form democracy could be dangerous. The writings of the founding era are replete with warnings of this fact:

“Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments,” Alexander Hamilton wrote. “If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship.”
Thomas Jefferson lamented that “a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”
James Madison argued that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
John Adams concluded that democracy “never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Source: The Hill

Besides the obvious constitutional flaws with Nevada’s new plan (from people who swore an oath to uphold it) there is a question if they even have the right to push this change.

To make the changes they are looking for would require a change to the Constitution itself by the usual prescribed methods and processes of ratification.

This ‘end run’ around that process might run afoul of laws preventing States from entering into separate compacts.

It most CERTAINLY negates the voice of that state’s own voters, giving the federal voice of distant States with different needs and priorities a greater say about what happens locally than it does the citizens of that state themselves.

If people two time zones away can determine what happens where you live, without your input, what was the point of fighting for Independence in the first place? All you will have done in the end is swap your London overlords for new ones in New York and Cali.

What was that famous quote again?

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

It’s one more reason NOT to vote for the social Iconoclasts on the Left so Hellbent on burning everything to the ground and starting over with — whatever’s fashionable at the time.

And what set the Democrats down this road? They couldn’t face the fact that we won.

By the way, since Facebook has unpublished ClashDaily’s page, your best bet to keep in the loop is to Subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here:

We’ve moved to a new social media platform, MeWe. It’s like Facebook without the data breaches and censorship.

Sign up and you can still get all the ClashDaily goodness by joining our MeWe group.

Do you love what we’re doing at Clash?

Do you want to kick in to our ‘war chest’ so that we Happy Warriors can maximize the size of the footprint we leave on Leftism’s backside? Here’s a link for ya to do just that.

Stay Rowdy!