Below is my column in Fox.com on the move by Democrats to change the Electoral College before the 2028 election. Once a critic of the college, I began to change my own views years ago while writing Rage and the Republic and exploring the growing challenges to our constitutional system. If successful, the move could effectively nullify the Electoral College and give high-population, blue states a dominant position in selecting presidents. The result could lead to the realization of long-awaited changes to our constitutional system that could guarantee effectively one-party rule for years to come.
Here is the column:
After the midterm elections, the Democrats are moving in for the kill.
Liberal politicians and pundits realize that the losses by the Republicans may only represent a fleeting, and indeed predictable, shift in power. While played up by the media, the results this month are consistent with prior administrations. For example, the GOP’s loss of roughly 46 seats is modest compared with other presidents such as Roosevelt (79), Obama (69), Truman (68), and Clinton (54). Thus far, Trump is just making the top ten. Presidents like Obama, who experienced massive losses, came back to win second terms.
The Democrats are not waiting to find out. They are moving to help guarantee they can take the White House and, with control of both houses, implement radical changes to ensure they hold power for years to come. That includes finally negating the Electoral College to increase the power of high-population blue states such as California and New York.
As discussed in my recent book, Rage and the Republic, academics and pundits have been discussing radical changes (including trashing the Constitution) for years. The key is to destroy minority protections by killing the filibuster and create an insurmountable majority by adding new states like the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The most important initial objective is packing the Court with an immediate liberal majority to allow for measures that would likely be struck down.
Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to make these changes possible. None of this is possible with a Republican in the White House.
The Democrats know that they are unlikely to attain a veto-proof majority. They need to get a president who will help pack the Court, add states, and make fundamental changes to the constitutional system.
That goal may now be attainable.
With a slew of new Democratic governors, Democrats believe they may have enough states to sign on to a compact to effectively nullify the Electoral College.
The Framers saw the College as a way of protecting small states from being overwhelmed by high-population states. It was designed to get presidents to take the interests of small states seriously and to protect political minority populations.
In my book, I raised the increasing importance of the Electoral College and other protections for small states and minority political groups in our system. I was a late convert, and I previously criticized the College for producing elections in which candidates won the majority vote but lost the electoral vote. I still share those reservations with a majority of Americans, who are polling at 58 percent in favor of electing presidents by popular vote.
I still believe that a president elected by less than a majority of the public is deeply problematic. This is not, however, the time for such a change and, if anything, the push for direct democratic reforms only reaffirms the judgment of the Framers that this is an important limitation for the nation.
Clearly, many people who are calling for this reform are not seeking one-party rule. Likewise, many of us who are now skeptical about the change raised those concerns before recent elections. We should be able to have this debate without personal or political animus.
The direct democratic reforms being pushed by professors and pundits risk dangerously destabilizing our constitutional system. Many on the left want to unleash more direct democratic power, including calls by groups like the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) to eliminate the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the presidency. The nullification of the College is part of the direct democracy movement.
Witnessing this movement (and the support of establishment figures), I changed my mind about dumping the College as part of a package of reforms that could fundamentally change our Republic.
With one-party control in states like Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the party is ready to get states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under the Compact, states agree to give all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the national popular vote.
The constitutionality of the Compact has obviously not been tested. There are compelling arguments that such a constructive amendment of the Constitution is unlawful. The Supreme Court has described the constitutional system as creating a “finely wrought” system of procedures designed to preserve a balancing of powers and avoid both the concentration of power and majoritarian abuse. The compact is designed to avoid the Article V amendment process precisely because the advocates know that they would have a difficult time securing such a change to our Constitution.
Ten years ago, I would have applauded this effort. Now I am deeply concerned.
We are in the midst of a national fever as politicians fuel the rage of citizens, including newly elected members who proudly say that they will happily go to jail if they have the opportunity to assault certain Republicans physically. Yet, the greatest danger is found in those establishment figures encouraging Americans to abandon constitutional values and institutions as “nostalgia” and condemning those who seek only “incremental” changes.
In Rage and the Republic, I explore these changes in both a historical and contemporary context. It is a book about revolutions and how they can consume those who start them. It is a history that resonates more deeply as new far-left members of Congress promise “revolutionary” change, including those supporting the DSA agenda.
Many current proposals from liberal politicians and pundits are strikingly similar to those of the “Jacobin” movement in the French Revolution. Both the American and French revolutions arose during the same period, but one became the world’s oldest and most successful Republic while the other became a blood-soaked tyranny known as “The Reign of Terror.”
The Jacobins (who were composed of radical journalists, writers, and lawyers) pushed for the same unicameral system and direct democratic measures that many are now advocating. Even figures such as Thomas Paine (one of two figures who played a significant role in both revolutions) supported such measures to allow for more direct democracy. He later came to regret some of those views as the French Revolution became the blood bath known as “the Terror.”
The New Jacobins are seeking to pursue the same disastrous reforms.
The Framers rejected this approach and warned future generations against adopting such direct democratic measures. Benjamin Rush, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, referred to it as democracies becoming “mobocracies.”
We are now toying with the very elements that could produce the mobocracy that the Framers sought to avoid. There are good-faith reasons for converting the presidential election to a majority election. However, with the assault on our constitutional values and traditions, citizens cannot afford to ignore a broader agenda unfolding in the wake of the midterm elections.
Jonathan Turley is the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
I humbly submit the only problem WE The PEOPLE have is a self destruction of our Christian legacy!
“Religion poisons everything.”
Christopher Hitchens
Anonymous,
Let’s see … Christopher Hitchens … God … hmmm???
Hitchens died 15 years ago. It was alleged that on his deathbed he realized his fatal error. His partner refuted that report. Either way he was disabused of his unbelief at the moment he faced the Almighty. I can only hope that the Lord had mercy on him.
Hitchens actually called this out before he died. He correctly stated religious fanatics would make all kinds of claims that upon his death he would magically admit everything he said was wrong.
He KNEW that was going to be claimed when he died.
Anon, by law and by vice.
Democrats are fascists!
So the party of riots and assassinations and kiddie mutilation and open borders and impatient chaos agents obtains permanent power through the “democratic” process. What could go wrong? They already have access to more money than most people could ever dream. They have effectively legalized graft and insider trading. Most run in uncontested races. Their armed guards will never be defunded. So they have the money which is a form of power – perhaps the ultimate form. But I guess the Jacobin Platform is designed to give them permanent unquestioned power. But can the strict top down discipline of the party be maintained if they have no outside enemy? I predict they will destroy themselves and/or the country inside a decade. Perhaps they’ll create a few more biological emergencies. That was fun. We have several good examples of the effects of permanent power in the big cities of America and other places where they have ruled for decades. Permanent power doesn’t create attractive destinations. It should be a fun ride. I look forward to comments sections like this being policed and deleted for starters.
When better than half of American citizens (Republicans & Independent) realize they have no rights and are forced to live under one tyrannical government- SECESSION.
Yes, well … as a staunch Southerner and supporter of the right of secession (which is really simply the right of self-determination), I’ll just say that’s already been tried, as you know, and the attempt was both bloody and unsuccessful. These people are ruthless and hungry for power, they can’t be satiated, and they will absolutely welcome the chance to kill as many who oppose them as possible – just as the Jacobins and Bolsheviks were.
@KStterling – I like millions of Americans have gone off to fight for others freedoms, maybe it’s time we make an effort to save for our own? These people hate the constitution, Bill of Rights and Americans in general. I wouldnt expect the calvary to save the day if I were you.
There may be good faith reasons for transitioning to popular vote selection of a president but the party that is pursuing that change has demonstrated itself to be acting not in good faith. The Dem party does not share the values and principles this nation was founded on. Angels are rare these days but none exist in the Dem ruling class. They seek unbridled power and control over the country and will allow no opposition. No one should doubt they will not give a whit about minority rights and protections. I’m doubtful the rest of us would stand quietly by while our country becomes California or Venezuela.
Professor Turley: In which volume and issue of Harvard Journal on Legislation did the article by Patrick C. Valencia appear? Anyone wanting to refer to or cite that article (or any particular passage in it) need a precise citation, not just a reference to your posting.
As the prof noted, this is a reprint of a Fox.com column that Turley wrote. It is not a scholarly paper and footnotes to law journals are rare in such writing.
Here it is, if you’re really interested. I found it under 2 minutes. Combination Among the States: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an Unconstitutional Attempt to Reform the Electoral College – Harvard Journal on Legislation
If only it were true that at least half of the Democrats knew what the Electoral College is, how it works, or why our Founding Fathers created it …
@Stephen
It would also be nice if they knew it were true that socialism/communism doesn’t mean things being just the same as always, but everything is free. It won’t be, and neither will they.
“knew what the Electoral College is, how it works…” Obviously they do, then why the tactic? Trying to sound smart is not your forte Steve.
No, a majority of Democrats don’t know this. And I mean elected Democrats, not just Democrat voters. Most of them have never read the constitution, and certainly have never understood it.
The Democrats’ understanding of our Electoral College is an unplugged Water Pik: an expensive lesson, elaborate in theory, and completely dead to the actual rules.
Esq, give it a fashion statement and dems will love it, a che t-shirt, a beret, a Palestinian scarf. A slogan, a chant and success!
Marx, Lenin, and Stalin would be proud of the New Wave Dems and their DSA Comrades!
The Electoral College is important if problems with the popular vote arises. For example, there may not be agreement as to who won the popular vote. The history books say John Kennedy won the popular vote, but it was actually Richard Nixon. Historians have changed the result by giving Kennedy credit for votes cast in Alabama for anti-Kennedy electors.
If this were happening in a less significant (on the world stage) nation, then this wouldn’t be a major issue. But when it happens in a nation that has outsize significance upon the world stage, it would be a disaster. Not just internally; it would negatively impact every nation in the world.
I completely disagree. What “negatively impact” do you refer to? “Outsize significance”? And what “significance” do you refer to?
Interesting that you won’t give your name. Ha.
America is the last nation standing b/w our current system of nation-states and obliteration of same via a single world government. Europe is already bowing to the EU, Africa only needs a little palm-greasing to come along. The Democrats are all in on the globalists’ Agenda 21, which aims to, first, kill as many people as possible via chaos, crime, disease, war, and vaccines (yes, it’s in the document) – this being necessary b/c a single world govt can only govern so many people, too many people make such an effort cumbersome and likely unsuccessful. The second aim is to obliterate the concept of nations via mass migration and denigrating every nation’s history in as many ways as possible. All of this you see going on now: Defund the Police, Antifa, BLM, and all the other usual suspects in the riots and “demonstrations” … it’s all part of the chaos. If you allow things to get bad enough, if you allow civilization to become uncivilized, people will beg for anything that restores order, including tyranny. The Democrats welcome that. Because they want perpetual power, they want to be the elite in charge of everyone else when democracy is wiped out. Those who know history understand that even communist Russia had “elections” but they were a sham, just as ours are today. We all know cheating is going on, and yet no one does anything about it. Just deny, deny, deny. The judicial system is now a joke, with partisan pols sitting on the bench and ruling however they want to with no regard to the law (some of them are on SCOTUS). We are teetering on the brink of extinction, and God help the world when America exits. There will be no one to stand up to the next Hitler or Stalin.
PS. My name is KSterling. Hit the wrong button and apparently can’t edit the above comment. But I do want to go on record. So.
“Interesting that you won’t give your name. Ha.” Where’s yours, anon?
You most definitely are a fool and idiot.
The Democrats are all in on the globalists’ Agenda 21, which aims to, first, kill as many people as possible via chaos, crime, disease, war, and vaccines (yes, it’s in the document)
No, it is not. You are a freaking liar.
I expect the Democrats to be evil. What truly disgusts me are folks like Senator Thune who occupy a seat that could go to someone who will actually do something for the country.
Young, your two points get to the exact crux of the issue for everyone outside of dedicated leftist Democrats. Recognizing the nature of the opposition is only half the battle; everyone needs to understand that a weak, do-nothing Republican in that seat doesn’t completely fix the problem.
It’s in the Constitution. It takes 2/3rds of the Senate. It can be vetoed. It has to pass muster at the Supreme Court which it won’t. Theater.
The Democrats know that they are unlikely to attain a veto-proof majority.
However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.”
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
The U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits states from entering into political agreements that resemble treaties, alliances, or confederations without the consent of Congress. This is outlined in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, which states:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.
Seems that violates the Constitution and the DOJ can prosecute those that entered into the compact.
Nothing like copying Turley eh?
Yes for the idiots that don’t read the article.
So, you didn’t read it then?
he nailed you, X, but not in the type of nailing you seek, pervert that you are
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.” Gawd yo are dumb.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, absolutely prohibits state governments from independently conducting foreign policy by signing formal international agreements. It ensures that the power to negotiate treaties, form alliances, or create confederations is reserved exclusively for the federal government, preventing states from entering into separate, potentially conflicting diplomatic arrangements with foreign nations or other states. Refers to foreign policy and international treaties.
It’s not limited to foreign policy or international treaties. Read the essay Turley linked to in the article.
I was referring here to the anti-compacts clause. Without congressional approval, the states cannot enter into compacts among themselves that affect federal interests.
It’s Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. And even with congressional approval, the compact may be unconstitutional because it upsets the constitutional structure without going through the amendment process.
Read the Constitution fool.
Anonymous, nice, but not even close. Let me explain why your rationale is flawed.
The NPVIC is not a constitutional amendment and does not require a two-thirds vote in the Senate. It is an agreement among individual states.
A U.S. President cannot veto a constitutional amendment, nor can they veto state-level legislation. The President only has veto power over federal legislation passed by Congress.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives states exclusive and plenary power to choose how they appoint their electors (“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…“).
States historically changed their methods frequently. Originally, many state legislatures picked electors directly without a public vote. The NPVIC utilizes this exact constitutional authority by changing state law to award electors to the winner of the national popular vote.
You quote the wrong clause and that’s the problem.
Alliances and treaties are completely banned for states, but interstate compacts fall under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 (the Compact Clause), which allows states to enter into agreements if they have the consent of Congress.
Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Virginia vs. Tennessee (1893), congressional consent is only required for compacts that encroach upon federal supremacy. If the NPVIC is deemed to infringe on federal power, it would simply require a simple majority vote in Congress to be valid—not a 2/3rds majority. Federal supremacy is not encroached because the Constitution gives decisions about electors to the states.
Passing legislation to join an interstate compact is a civil, constitutional matter, not a criminal act. If a compact is found to violate the Constitution, the remedy used by the courts is to strike it down or declare it unenforceable. The DOJ has no legal basis to criminally prosecute state legislators or governors for passing state laws.
So, yes, states CAN do that.
Turley’s point is that even with congressional authorisation the compact may be unconstitutional because it’s effect is to change the Constitution without amendment.
Daniel, but the constitutions doesn’t forbid state compacts. The constitution gives states the power to choose electors and how to choose them. Because it’s the states who have the power on how they conduct their elections it is perfectly allowable to engage in such a compact. It doesn’t impugn on federal power at all.
It’s essentially a very clever and legal loophole. But…it still requires the states to agree and that’s the difficult bit Turley doesn’t emphasize because he wants to scare those on the right into a rage.
The article Turley links to cites cases where seemingly permissible actions are nonetheless unconstitutional because they in effect change the Constitution without an amendment. Whether that reasoning would apply here is an open question.
Daniel, the article Turley cited may be compelling only if certain conditions exist.
The text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 explicitly gives states absolute authority over how they allocate their electoral votes: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”
That is a plenary power.
In McPherson v. Blacker (1892) and more recently in Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), the Supreme Court confirmed that this power is plenary (absolute and unqualified). Because the text explicitly delegates the manner of appointment to state legislatures, changing the criteria to the national popular vote is a state-level policy choice, not a structural alteration requiring a constitutional amendment.
The article Turley cited argues courts should use the “finely wrought” standard from INS v. Chadha and Clinton v. City of New York to strike down the NPVIC for evading Article V.
But…Chadha (which struck down the legislative veto) and Clinton (which struck down the line-item veto) dealt with the federal government altering the internal balance of power between Congress and the Executive branch without textual permission. The NPVIC is entirely different; it is an exercise of a power explicitly textually reserved for the states. The federalism principles that restricted federal overreach in Chadha actually protect state autonomy when it comes to Article II powers.
The article argues the Framers established the Electoral College to prevent states from forming political alliances or “combinations” with one another.
The historical combinations the Framers feared under the Articles of Confederation were sovereign, regional trade or military alliances acting outside the framework of the United States government. The NPVIC does not create a separate governing alliance; it operates entirely within the existing statutory and constitutional framework of the United States.
The current “winner-take-all” system used by 48 states—where 100% of a state’s electoral votes go to the statewide winner even if they only won by a fraction of a percent—is not found anywhere in the Constitution. Early states used a mix of district systems, proportional systems, and selection by state legislatures directly. Because states have historically shifted their selection methods to suit changing political desires, moving from a statewide winner-take-all model to a nationwide winner-take-all model is textually permissible.
The Constitution does not broadly ban states from working together; Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 (the Compact Clause) explicitly establishes a mechanism for interstate agreements. Under the Supreme Court standard set in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), an interstate compact only requires congressional consent if it encroaches upon federal supremacy. If the NPVIC is deemed to affect federal supremacy, it can legally be validated by a simple majority vote in Congress—it does not require a supermajority or a constitutional amendment.
You may be right about this but it is an open question. Plenary authority is still subject to restrictions under the constitution. A state could not, for example, discount the votes of anyone in a majority minority district for the purpose of choosing electors. We won’t know the answer unless and until it reaches the Supreme Court.
Daniel, it has already reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that individual citizens do not have an inherent, unconditional federal constitutional right to vote for presidential electors unless the state legislature chooses to grant it (Bush v. Gore).
Under decades of Supreme Court Fourteenth Amendment and Voting Rights Act jurisprudence (such as Thornburg v. Gingles), illegal vote dilution occurs when a state structure systematically minimizes a protected minority class’s ability to elect their preferred candidates relative to other voters in that state.
Under the NPVIC, every single individual vote is treated exactly the same, regardless of geography or race. A black voter in Atlanta, a Hispanic voter in Miami, and a white voter in rural Wyoming all have their votes counted directly toward the exact same national pool. Because the compact treats all voters within the state identically, it does not discriminate against any specific district or racial group.
That’s what Republicans don’t want. That’s why they gerrymandered so many districts to minimize the effect minority voters would have in this election and why it backfired spectacularly. Because the midterms is all about direct democracy without the advantage of the EC.
Daniel, there was a near breakdown in how all the states voted according to demographic.
If only women voted every state voted blue. If it were just 18-29 yr olds, every state voted blue. If it were white males 49-60 nearly every state voted red. If independents only voted every state voted blue. The breakdown of how every demographic voted shows why the electoral college is flawed. It showed why republicans like the electoral college but don’t really like the midterms because it’s when the popular vote is more important.
It showed why redistricting by republicans didn’t work.
Redistricting in 2026 was viewed as highly offensive by independents — those who believe the parties are corrupt to try to win elections by ANY MEANS OTHER THAN authentically putting forth policy options. Gaming the system to win, identity politics, and intentional duping of the voters are the stuff of cheats and scoundrels.
“Anonymous, nice, but not even close. Let me explain why your rationale is flawed.” Flawed, George you the local idiot, you just don’t know it.
You of all idiots on this platform are going to lecture people smarter than you. And, who are lazy pendants preening and posturing as if you know something. And using AI to fill that void between your ears.
Is what I posted wrong? You don’t seem to be able to say it’s…wrong. Smarter people would be able to. Can you?
“It can be vetoed.”
You are mistaken.
“It has to pass muster at the Supreme Court . . .”
I don’t know where you keep getting this stuff from, but that also is wrong. The SC plays no role in the passage of a Constitutional amendment. Such amendments are not reviewable by the Court.
That refers to states creating their own foreign policies. It doesn’t apply.
Anyway, the NPVIC is not a binding agreement among states. It’s an agreement within a state to choose how it’s slate of Electors are to be chosen.
That said, the NPVIC is subversive to Constitutional intent. It only carries legitimacy if the Constitution is Amended to elect the President by direct popular vote.
The compacts clause argument ignores Virginia v Tennessee. In 1893 the Supreme Court ruled that the clause applies only to those compacts that enhance the states’ power at the expense of Congress’s power. This compact doesn’t do that, so under that decision it doesn’t need Congress’s permission.
However, X, if the compact comes into effect states that object may take it to SCOTUS, and ask it to overturn Virginia v Tennessee. The current court is much more textualist than the one in 1893 was, and may well say that the clause means exactly what it says, and yes, if two states sign a lease for office space that one state wants to rent in a building owned by the other state, they must submit it to congress.
If SCOTUS agrees, then this compact would also require congress’s consent. That would initially be a majority vote in each house, which the Democrats could supply, but the President would then veto it, and it would take 2/3 in each house to override the veto.
Millhouse,
Justice Antonin Scalia, the pioneer of modern textualism, repeatedly affirmed that statutes and constitutional provisions must be read in their historical context. A textualist Court would not rule that a routine commercial contract (like renting office space) is a constitutional “Compact.” So your analogy is a bit flawed.
The rule from Virginia v. Tennessee was reaffirmed by a modern Court in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978). Overturning this standard would instantly invalidate thousands of highly successful, non-controversial interstate compacts that govern everyday American life—such as driver’s license reciprocity, emergency management assistance, and regional environmental groups. The Court avoids creating massive administrative chaos unless a precedent is textually unworkable, which Virginia v. Tennessee is not.
But… the textualists and originalists in the current SCOTUS are only Textualists and originalists when their views align with the conservative view. Not the constitution. They’ve been known to abandon the philosophy when it’s contrary to their political views.
If a conservative, formalist Supreme Court strikes down the NPVIC, they will not do so by overturning Virginia v. Tennessee. Instead, they would apply the Virginia v. Tennessee standard and rule that the NPVIC does encroach upon federal supremacy or the structural framework of the Constitution. That would be a hard sell since they will have to be extremely narrow in their interpretation to avoid making a bigger mess.
It is not democracy when the citizens of State A vote for Candidate A, but its EC vote goes to Candidate B because voters elsewhere wanted Candidate B. The entirety of State A voters are then disenfranchised.
It’s a represntative republic with a limited democratic system of picking those representatives. That means checks and balances. The Bill of Rights and Electoral college are those checks and balances. Get rid of them and you live under a Dictator and mob rule. Only fools would do that, and Democratic voters are fools. Democratic politicians demons.
Think Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Pol Pot and any Democrat right now.
Trouble is that there are lots of fools in this country that don’t know, and don’t care to know how and why this country came to be.
@Anonymous
Yes, they are confusing ‘democratization’ with ‘democracy’. They are not the same thing, and modern dems represent the precise opposite of the former.
Not a democracy? If citizens vote, it is.
Anonymous,
It seems that you are overlooking one simple fact. The United States of America created by the Constitution is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic. Anyone who wants to replace it with a democracy is, in fact, erasing the United States of America.
Steve, why do you always make an a$$ of yourself. Didn’t state “Democracy” as a form silly steve. Democracy is the tool that engages citizens… to vote.
Anonymous,
Oh. I see. You’re using the Democrat Dictionary for the definition of Democracy … with the likes of birthing parent, women’s health care, equity, White Supremacy, Russian disinformation, Nazi …
Read history: Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic.
In a small group, two Stupid leftists and the golden goose are deciding what to eat. The two Stupid leftists vote to eat the golden goose.
@Anonymous
No, it isn’t, and neither is the United States, and it never has been. We are a Constitutional Republic; referring to us as a ‘democracy’ is something democrats invented all by themselves without anyone’s consent or agreement.
WTF do you think the word democracy encompasses. Voting, participation etc. You like Steve are the heir apparent to the platform the idiot Dustoff abandoned.
It is not democracy when the citizens of State A vote for Candidate A, but its EC vote goes to Candidate B because voters elsewhere wanted Candidate B. The entirety of State A voters are then disenfranchised.
That is a ridiculous argument. Whatever the merits or lack thereof of this proposed compact, and I’m very much against it, there is nothing in the constitution to suggest that a state’s electors must be chosen according to the wishes of a plurality of that state’s voters. There’s nothing to suggest that a state must even allow its citizens to vote on the matter at all. A state legislature can abolish presidential elections altogether, and simply provide that “This state’s electors shall be appointed by the Democratic National Committee”. That would be perfectly constitutional. Of course at the next state election that legislature would get thrown out on its ear, and the new one would repeal that law.
Once again I say, people outside of the radical bloc have no idea what they just did to us. It tells me the majority of voters have no idea how our system works or why it was set up that way, nor do they realize the dems are no longer a law abiding Constitutional party. Voters lack the foresight, or knowledge of history or current geopolitics to realize how this will play out for them and us in the future.
Pray there are enough states that will not play along. They haven’t even taken office yet and the dismantling has already begun, and no, nothing is going to get ‘cheaper’. Their version of ‘cheaper’ is government run everything and the elimination of choice and autonomy.
One could argue that with the exodus from blue cities, redder places might end up with the upper hand due to population, but the dems will simply replace them with an open border and mass amnesty.
We are very stupid people.
“to us”? Who or what is “us”? You are a very stupid “it”.
looks like you didnt get laid again which explains why at 4:24 AM West Hollywood, California time you are here venting your anger that none of the homos in WeHo banged you…..yet again.
As anon wrote: “You are a very stupid “it”.”
I think the voters knew exactly what they were doing to “us”. Starting under Obama, the left has been playing the long game for years. Biden was the perfect useful idiot for a third Obama term. The entire team was still running the show. They would have had the SC too if things had gone according to the plan. Fortunately, McConnell grew a spine for 10 mins. Trump was the only wild card they didn’t expect, or things would have been over long ago. Do you believe that mass, organized illegal immigration just happened spontaneously, or that maybe the Soros millions came at a price? Or that USAID might have been in place for a purpose? Or that maybe appointing radical judges might pay dividends? Republicans need to wake up, “we” might only have a few months left of a lame duck session to fight back.
The Minutemen mascot was replaced with the Bears in CA. The environs don’t know what a Minuteman is or was? Cultural identity?
It’s quite hopeless, James.
Fascist Democrats hate the “republican” form of government. They want mob rule. The reason the United States was created as a republic was to enshrine the rights of minorities, and protect them from the tyranny of the majority that always tramples the civil rights of minorities. Every. Single. Time. Even the Greeks had figured that out. Democrats think they can control the monster they seek to unleash.
Who are the “Fascist Democrats”? Something your twisted mind created.
Obama, Biden, H. Clinton Jack Smith, James Comey and the list goes on.
They are registered “Democrats”. List? You only named 5 democrats.
Let us enshrine the minorities who elected Republicans like Lincoln, Hayes, Bush Jr., and Trump with as little as 39% of the vote. It’s more righteous than counting Democrats as 3/5 of a person, yet almost the same.
“The New Jacobins are seeking to pursue the same disastrous reforms.” (JT)
The D’s are like a delusional man who imagines that since a woman smiled at him, she wants to have his babies.
Their power grab requires approval by 38 states. They currently control 25 state legislatures. Where do they imagine they’re going to get the other 13 from?
Oh, that’s right. They have a new con game: Don’t abolish the Electoral College. “Reimagine” it as a rubber stamp for the popular vote.
Never say never Sam. The dems will surprise your kind again and again, as they have for the last 15 years. Your kind never imagined the USA would ever be in this state of anarchy. You sat on your fat a$$es thinking how superior your kind is. You’re not. The dems are the superior group.
Just look at where you’re at. A step before an abyss. The dems are forcing you into it. Its over.
i hate the smell of a cultist bombing the internet comments sections with his diarrhea
Then take your head out of the toilet.
Finally an Anon post I agree with. If “our kind” keeps electing John Thune style republicans to office, it will be all over. Republican’s shifted to a populist under Trump. We’re going to need to shift a little more and use the lame-duck session to see what can be salvaged. If they bring Thune back as minority leader, we deserve everything we get.
God has gigantic land moving equipment. This is a patch of ground somewhere in Mexico. Go north young man.
Their power grab requires approval by 38 states. They currently control 25 state legislatures. Where do they imagine they’re going to get the other 13 from?
No it doesn’t require 38 states. It doesn’t even require a majority of states. All it requires is approval by enough state legislatures to cover a majority of the electoral college.
Democrats could determine the outcome of the 2028 presidential election right now (or at least in January) by having each state that has a Democrat majority in both houses of the legislature and a Democrat governor pass a law saying that “This state’s electors in 2028 shall not be elected by the people, but shall be chosen by the Democratic National Committee”. Boom. Guaranteed Democrat majority.
The only downside for the Democrats is that those state legislatures would all probably be defeated in the 2028 state election, but too late for it to affect the presidential outcome, because the new legislatures would only take office in January 2029, and the new Democrat president would already have been elected.
Sam, you may know better than I, but the power grab can be done in two ways.
⅔ vote in Congress for an amendment, followed by ratification by ¾ of the states (38)
or
A compact between the states, which would presently require 48 more electors.
The former is an Amendment: No veto, no Supreme Court
The latter would end up before the Supreme Court.
The mechanism of voting for the president by states – that is the winner of the state’s vote collects all its electoral votes (Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions) makes a certain amount of sense given that we are, after all, the United States of America – a union of states. In practice, it focuses the presidential election strategy on the “swing states”. If one were to simply use a popular vote, then the presidential election strategy would be far more urban oriented – that is where the votes are – but which have rather narrow political perspectives. The need to capture the state’s electoral votes forces the presidential electoral strategy to address politically broader issues – a good thing in my opinion. On the other hand, the College mechanism whereby we vote for electors that then vote for the president seems more than a bit goofy and should be dispensed with.
It seems that for smaller states to join the compact to nullify the Electoral College, they are effectively nullifying themselves. For them to do so, they appear to concede their contributions to more populous states. This suggests big money has flooded these states convincing local leaders to enact such laws. One consequence is legal action, of course. If that fails, it seems that statewide elections would become ultra vicious, fed by hate, by rage, by jealousy, and by more money.
It just may be that a few domestic and foreign big money sources have determined a way to destroy America without firing a shot. The EU has similarly been destroyed, though, through excessive immigration in combination with its broad (and very expensive) welfare systems.
Why big money? No, it a new idea, a repudiation of the old ways. Its called socialism. Big money can’t buy that. People only.
Socialism comes in layers. At the bottom are the rock-throwers, living on promises. Next layer up are the politicians, living on campaign money. At the top are the financiers making huge money. You don’t even know their names. Me thinks you are a rock-thrower.
Rock thrower and internet troll are on the same level of delusion and moral bankruptcy.
In 1949 in Terminiello v. Chicago, SCOTUS Justice Robert Jackson warned in dissent that if the Court failed to act rationally, it risked turning the Bill of Rights into a “suicide pact.” Today, that warning takes on added gravity as the Democrats seek to metastasize the Constitution itself, let alone the Bill of Rights, into such a pact.
The “fundamental transformation” promised by the usurper from Honolulu is accelerating in ways even Ben Franklin could not have imagined when he also warned that we have a republic, but only if we can keep it. He never envisioned that a cabal of politicians who actually hated America would seek to replace it with a dictatorship resembling that of Pol Pot.
The EC had failed every goal it had. Small states are still ignored, along with most of the others. The EC needs to gong and this should not be a partisan issue.
“. . . along with most of the others.”
Except, of course, for the seven swing states, which if the D’s get their wish will be completely ignored.
Only an ideologically consumed partisan hack would write that kind of utter nonsense that’s devoid of any connection to actual reality. What you’re writing is delusional gaslighting propaganda, therefore, you’re a propagandist troll.
Moron.