Posted on 06/03/2019 12:46:18 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Subtitle: The Framers’ Electoral College.
If I could get through to Dennis Prager’s radio show, I’d encourage him to read Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 68 on Presidential elections. Should he do so, I’m confident he would give it airtime. I also believe he would edit his Prager U videos on the Electoral College (EC). While they are informative, his videos do not address the EC’s purposes, the first of which is to appoint men preeminent in their ability and public virtue. Of equal importance is that they arrive in office without political debts to pay.
The Framers’ President, like the ideal hereditary king, was above faction. No collection of factions, what we call political parties, financed his run for office. In fact, the Framers’ President didn’t run for office in the modern sense at all. If Dennis was better-acquainted with Federalist No. 68, his enormous influence among millions of followers just might reverse a dangerous movement called the National Popular Vote Compact (NPV). When more state legislators learn the purpose of the EC, there may be enough of them to stop the NPV. No one knows better than Dennis of the Left’s corruption of everything it touches.
This isn’t to say the Prager U videos aren’t fine as far as they go; they acknowledge the reality of a two-party system overlay of Article II § 1. Some noteworthy modern features of the EC are that it stymies majority-rule tyranny, limits the effect of ballot-stuffing and other frauds to single states, and encourages coalition-building. As Hillary Clinton learned the hard way, the wise candidate will not ignore smaller states and less densely populated areas of the country.
So, the videos examine the Framers’ design through the lens of dueling political parties . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
his enormous influence among millions of followers just might reverse a dangerous movement called the National Popular Vote Compact (NPV)
The NPV isn’t about doing away with the Electoral College or pushing the country toward the true definition of Democracy/Mob Rule. It’s about using voter fraud, on a scale never before imagined through illegals, ballot harvesting, voting more than once, dead folks voting, etc etc, to boost the numbers for whoever the Democrats want to win. Nothing more.
It should really make one wonder just how much support they really have. How close would any of these elections be if there was some real voter integrity and a voting process that eliminated voter fraud. I’m thinking they wouldn’t have more than a few dozen seats and they would all be from the urban centers/big cities.
Our Republic is in peril, no doubt about it. All of these things undermine the electoral process to the advantage of the Left, and they are pursuing all of them in parallel. We are in real danger. Any one of these would be bad, but all of them are catastrophic.
I appreciate this sentiment, but that ship sailed a long, long time ago, IMO.
This implies that one casts their vote for an elector, and that the character of that elector is important, even pre-eminent and vital for the system to function.
Perhaps, back in the day of the founders, that may have been true, but I can't see that abstraction holding up to today's functions.
I know absolutely nothing (and have never, ever known anything of them) about the electors of my state, except to assume they are mostly party hacks.
I don’t actually think this is the best argument, in that most Americans know that our pols, including the members of our electoral college, are not some sort of ethical elite in our country, imbued with some sort of superior wisdom to the common man.
Agreed.
I still believe the best argument for the Electoral College is that it makes the election fifty indpendent elections for President (instead of one big election which introduces the additional specter of more effective means of voting fraud) which forces candidates to account for as many of them as possible, and as such, hearing the voices and needs of all fifty states instead of the voices and needs of heavily populated areas.
I think so too.
(The downside of course at this point is that we end up with atrocities like ethanol.)
Boy, I remember when the whole ethanol thing was being pursued, I didn’t give it much thought.
When I found out over time the details, wow. What a boondoggle.
Compacts between States are forbidden by the Constitution.
That includes NPV.
L
An agricultural, environmental, consumer, taxpayer, and mechanical travesty.
If I could talk to Dennis Prager I’d request that he publicly apologize for what he said about Bob Grant.
Yet here we have he Driver License Compact for how many years now.
In the United States of America, an interstate compact is an agreement between two or more states. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.” Consent can be obtained in one of three ways. First, there can be a model compact and Congress can grant automatic approval for any state wishing to join it, such as the Driver License Compact. Second, states can submit a compact to Congress prior to entering into the compact. Third, states can agree to a compact then submit it to Congress for approval, which, if it does so, causes it to come into effect. Not all compacts between states require explicit Congressional approval – the Supreme Court ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee that only those agreements which would increase the power of states at the expense of the federal government required it.
“Yet here we have he Driver License Compact for how many years now.”
That’s called “Full Faith and Credit”. That’s in the Constitution, too. Try reading it sometime.
L
Unfortunately, per Article II, the states can appoint electors in the manner they wish.
Ping to #15. I wouldn’t pin my hopes on Scotus shooting down the NPV. The best defense is to convince the remaining states that its a bad idea, for the reasons explained by Alexander Hamilton.
I see you have read it. My error. Sorry.
L
Liberals/Marxists/progressives/media reject all thinking of our Framers as being antiquated, out-of-date, and no longer applicable.
Their world-view and mindset is totally against all the foundations of our Framers thinking.
But I know you already know that.
A great suggestion, but only benefits those of us who are already of a mindset parallel to that of our Founders......
My feelings on appointing electors is this. Since the number of electors in each sate is equal to the number of legislative Districts + 2 then the candidate that wins the legislative district should be awarded that elector. The 2 extra electors are based on the number of senators for each state. Those two electors should go to the candidate who wins that state.
“My feelings on appointing electors is this.“
My feeling is that we should stick with the Electoral system designed by the Founders.
Enjoy your day.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.