05-14-2019 10:57:15 AM -0700
05-09-2019 02:01:30 PM -0700
05-09-2019 10:41:48 AM -0700
04-18-2019 07:46:35 AM -0700
04-18-2019 07:18:40 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.


The Left's End-Run Around the Constitution

This week, my state of Connecticut hopped aboard the "Resistance" bandwagon, loaded up a gun made by one of the many firearms manufacturers who have been driven from the state, and shot itself in the foot. It did so by officially signing on to an unconstitutional enormity called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an ingenious mechanism for disenfranchising residents of small states in order to nullify the Electoral College, and make them feel good about their own suicide.

Connecticut is joining a growing alliance of liberal states in a "pact" that would supposedly allow them to change the way presidents are picked -- by allocating each state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

The uphill campaign, which if ever brought to fruition would almost certainly face a court challenge, has gained renewed attention amid Democratic grumbling about the Electoral College in the wake of President Trump's 2016 win. While he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots.

Enter the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which blue states are joining to commit to allocating their electoral votes to the national popular-vote winner -- regardless of their own state results. The pact is meant to be a work-around to the constitutional requirements that created the Electoral College system, which awards each state's electors to the winner of that state.

"Work-around"? Nullification is more like it. But this is typical of the fascist Left, offering a "solution" to a non-existent problem in order to improve their chances at permanent political domination. It frustrates them to no end that having conquered California, New York, and Illinois in order to bank 104 electoral votes before a presidential campaign has even begun (270 are needed to win), they discovered that transforming those states into Democrat ghettos meant that every popular-vote margin over 1 is wasted, since the overall national popular vote doesn't matter.

Now, of course, they want to change that. The Left understands it's not practical (at this point) to abolish the Electoral College; rather, they seek their usual path to institution-sapping, as vividly described by my friend, Iowahawk:

In other words, there will still be an Electoral College; it just won't mean a damn thing other than to provide a fig leaf of legality in order to abolish the distinctions between large and small states -- in the name of "one man, one vote," of course. And tolerance, fairness, diversity, blah, blah, blah...

As I noted after the 2016 election, the Electoral College is what spared us from Hillary Clinton:

What happened in the recent election was that the Left, by flooding into and taking over New England, the metropolitan D.C. area, Illinois, parts of the Mountain West, and the West Coast, accidentally screwed itself by confining its appeal to fringe areas of the country. Sure, they locked in California's 55 electoral votes and New York State's 29, but a plurality of a single liberal vote in each of those states would have given them the same result. So all those millions of votes in L.A. and the Bay Area went down the drain, which serves them right for ruining what used to be the best place to live in the entire country...

The constitutionality of the NPV strikes me as highly dubious, since it attacks the letter of the law rather than its intent, and corrupts the entire foundational concept of the American republic.

Conservative opponents of a direct vote say it would give an unfair edge to large, heavily Democratic cities and states. But why should the votes of Americans in California or New York count for less than those in Idaho or Texas?

Because, under our carefully crafted constitutional republic, suitable for governing a continent-wide of astonishing geographical and human diversity, the people don't elect the president, the States do.

But the idea of independent and, dare I say "diverse," states is repugnant to totalitarians. As they go about rewriting the history of the United States, one of the things they're trying to expunge is the idea that thirteen separate colonies came together in order to form a more perfect union. The nation they envision -- and which they're on their way to realizing -- is one ruled from Washington, with the states acting as administrative satrapies.

In theory, the game-changing compact would take effect once it signs on states representing at least 270 electoral votes, the threshold to win the presidency. With the expected addition of Connecticut's seven electoral votes, the group now has 172.

Other jurisdictions that have joined the pact include California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia — all places where Clinton defeated Trump in 2016. Connecticut would be the first state to sign on since 2014, when New York joined.

“The vote of every American citizen should count equally, yet under the current system, voters from sparsely populated states are awarded significantly more power than those from states like Connecticut,” [governor Dannel] Malloy said. “This is fundamentally unfair.”

On the contrary: it's fundamentally constitutional. Let's keep it that way.