Conservative Republicans need a third party and modification to election laws

TEA Party logo 1

While the TEA Party is nothing more than a conservative movement of the Right to re-establish Constitutional government, Republican moderates, who control the GOP and want their share of what Democrats are raking in from taxpayers, are fighting to abolish conservative influence in the Republican Party.  The Grand Old Party, created on the basis of the conservative Christian ideology of the Founders, has been corrupted and turned against its conservative base.  While a third party would rend the party and allow Democrats to grab more power there is a solution if elections laws are changed to require a run-off between two candidates for a majority vote.

With the GOP moderates who control the Republican Party are fighting against their base.  They are defunding conservative candidates and pushing a liberal agenda akin to the Democrats, even to the point of enlisting Democrats to help them retain office as they did in Mississippi.  Turning out Democrat voters in the Republican primary run-off between the GOP Establishment incumbent against the TEA Party conservative by enlisting the black vote against the “TEA Party racists,” the GOP foiled the vote of the Republican majority who have had it with Washington elites stealing the wealth of the nation for themselves.

Democrats want to change the Constitutional election laws once again having thoroughly corrupted the system by promoting the “fairness” of allowing everyone to vote whether or not they pay taxes on how taxes are spent.  Now they want the Electoral College that protects the smaller states from the big city states to be eliminated in the name of “fairness.”  Democrats who vote because they fooled enough Republicans into endorsing universal suffrage vote for government to provide them with benefits for which they have not paid.  This transfer of wealth from those who work hard and pay taxes to those who don’t is taking America down the path to socialism and the eventual collapse into a dictatorship to which this ideology always leads.

In the past, some presidents have won with a majority in the electoral college and a minority in the popular vote due to additional candidates splitting the vote for the two primary parties.  Clinton won his first election with just 43%, and Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote because of third party candidates, and George W. Bush won by a single state’s electoral votes over Gore who failed to carry his home state but won the popular vote by .5%.  What Democrats propose is that the Electoral College split their votes according to the popular vote, which does nothing but corrupt the system to the point of destroying the Constitution.

The only truly fair and equitable system would be to have any election that results in no candidate achieving a majority of the populace with over 50% of the popular vote to send the two highest candidates into a run-off.  This would neutralize the third party effect causing a president to be elected by a minority of the population, but still leave the Constitution intact in selecting the president by each state.

It has become clear that the moderates in control of the GOP willingly sell-out to liberals for a share of the big bucks that are being taxed out of America’s economy.  Democrat liberals are happy to steal from those who work and give to those who don’t to buy their votes.  Unless conservatives can gain firm control of the government, America will continue to deteriorate.  The economic booms under the policies of Reagan and Gingrich could be multiplied ten-fold if conservatives took charge in government and made it once again what the Founders created.

GOP took part in reprehensible reverse Operation Chaos in Mississippi

Thad Cochran’s coalition of the lied to

2000 Presidential election controversy

[Democrats thrilled with Uncle Tom voters in Mississippi]

[TEA Party confesses racist redneck agenda]



The Sucker Generation – Millenials not waking up to being duped

How Obama, Hitler, and the Star Wars Emperor are the same

Captain America and the New World Order


The Battling Boys of Benghazi – Obama’s ‘bump in the road’

Conservative Republican vs Liberal Democrat economy

Main articles

Liberals Backwards Think

Young liberal wisdom; a series of unfortunate beliefs – Introduction

About dustyk103

This site is my opinion only and is unpaid. I am a retired Paramedic/Firefighter with 25 years of service in the City of Dallas Fire Dept. I have a B.A. degree in Journalism, and A.A. degrees in Military Science and History. I have spent my life studying military history, world history, American history, science, current events, and politics making me a qualified PhD, Senior Fellow of the Limbaugh Institute, and tenured Professor for Advanced Conservative Studies. 😄 It is my hope that readers can gain some knowledge and wisdom from my articles.
This entry was posted in Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Conservative Republicans need a third party and modification to election laws

  1. With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation’s votes!


  2. Guess Scarf says:

    I’ve been browsing online more than 3 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours.
    It is pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all web owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the web will be a lot
    more useful than ever before.


  3. Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation’s 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

    Run-off elections are a dubious solution to the perceived problem. Elections are expensive to administer, and it is already difficult to recruit the required mass of citizen volunteers needed to operate a statewide election. Turn-out in run-off elections is invariably low, as evidenced in the handful of cities (and Georgia) that conduct run-offs, so it is hard to argue that run-offs promote election of a candidate with actual majority support. A run-off election would require candidates to raise additional money on short-notice.


  4. 80% of the states and people were just spectators to the 2012 presidential election. That’s more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, ignored.

    During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.


  5. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states:
    “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 Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.
    A majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet).

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.


  6. National Popular Vote is a nonpartisan coalition of legislators, scholars, constitutionalists and grassroots volunteers committed to preserving the Electoral College, while guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states.

    The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressman, John Buchanan (R–Alabama), and former Senators David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

    Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)

    Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

    The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson,

    Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State

    Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:”A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”

    Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote” include:

    Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

    James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

    Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

    Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

    Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.


  7. With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power.

    States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

    Based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill is enacted by state legislatures to replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), with a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

    The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, 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.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

    We would continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states.

    Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
    in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA –75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
    in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE -74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
    in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
    in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
    Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.



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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.