Democrats would eliminate the Electoral College making voter fraud king

Electoral College

By eliminating the Electoral College, Democrats would make America a democracy instead of a republic.  In a democracy the majority always rules and the minority has no rights resulting in their ability to challenge the system being stripped away.  This leads to corruption and tyranny in which the system will eventually collapse into a dictatorship.

America was founded as a republic and not a democracy for a reason.  In a republic only those who contribute taxes vote for their representatives on how money is spent by the government.  But the powers in Washington have changed America to be more of a democracy wherein those who do not pay taxes also vote on how that money is spent – and they always vote to spend taxes other people contributed on benefits for themselves.  This is what has allowed pandering liberals and moderates to gain control of government and is bringing about the decline of America.  Democracy always fails when the mob realizes they can vote themselves benefits.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch.” – Benjamin Franklin

Robert A. Heinlein explains how democracy breeds corruption

Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College and make America a true Democracy with elections won by popular vote.  An examination of this “majority rules” idea reveals that this system only leads to corruption, decline, and eventually to a socialist dictatorship like Venezuela.  The electoral system was designed to protect the majority of states that have smaller populations from depredations by the biggest states.

California makes voter fraud legal

A number of Democrat states are banding together to pool their electoral votes for the candidate that has the popular vote and have enough votes to overwhelm the Electoral College.  How does this corruption make voting more fair?  The answer is it doesn’t.  California’s Democrat legislature and governor just signed into law an act giving illegal aliens the right to vote in American elections, thereby stacking the popular vote with millions of illegal votes.

Do you want illegal aliens deciding who runs our government?  Do you want people who do not pay taxes voting benefits for themselves from taxpayer’s money?  It’s not bad enough that Democrat’s commit ten times more voter fraud than Republicans with dead people voting, people voting multiple times, casting votes for those who don’t show up for elections, gerrymandering, and machine tampering like Port St. Lucie, FL, where 146% of registered voter ballots were counted in the last election.  What does it take for Americans to understand that the Democrats are disenfranchising them in order to steal from taxpayers?

Here’s hoping that California’s Mexicans put an initiative on the ballot to cede the state to Mexico so we can be rid of the damn cheating fools.  America was not designed to be a Democracy where anyone who didn’t contribute to building the nation could vote how resources are spent.  American greed thy name is Democrat.

Related articles;

Gov. Brown of California signs bill allowing illegal aliens to vote

Blue states trying to override electoral system

Electoral fraud

Best articles;

Christians crushed the Inquisition, Moslems endorse the Jihad

You don’t need science to prove global warming is a scam

Morality in humanity

Black Lives Matter – an analysis of America’s newest hate group

Young liberal wisdom; a series of unfortunate beliefs

(Please like and share this with your friends.  Let them know the truth.  To subscribe click on “follow” and respond to the email WordPress sends you.)

(Debate: Honest people wishing to debate will post their remarks in the comments of the article.  Dishonest people wishing to dissuade people from reading the truth will post in the comments of a link.  My blog is a knowledgeable, critically analyzed, and morally based opinion of a Christian conservative and classical liberal.  If you want confirmation of facts then try researching the Internet instead of stupidly crying “liar” like a mindless fool.  If you want to see opposing views presented then do it yourself!)

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, Election 2016 and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Democrats would eliminate the Electoral College making voter fraud king

  1. Jules Guidry says:

    They can’t win the next election with the legal citizens of this nation, therefore make the illegals into legal voters via the stroke of “moonbeams” pen. Yep, CA has just cemented its position in history as the home of the “fruits, nuts and flakes”. And, possibly, doomed this nation at the same time.

    Like

  2. kohler says:

    Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

    Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO). The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson.

    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 National Popular Vote plan would not help either party over the other.

    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.”

    Laura Brod who 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 who 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 who 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.

    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).

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Obviously, you either didn’t read or didn’t understand my article, and neither do any of the people you named as they obviously didn’t address the corruption involved in stuffing the ballot box with fraudulent votes.

      Like

      • kohler says:

        Under the current system of electing the President, every vote in every precinct matters inside every battleground state. If it were true that an election in which the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes is “a guarantee of corruption,” then we should see today a wealth of evidence of rampant fraud in presidential elections inside every battleground state. Similarly, we should see evidence of rampant fraud today in every gubernatorial election in every state.

        Executing electoral fraud without detection requires a situation in which a very small number of people can have a very large impact.

        Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, there are huge incentives for fraud and mischief, because a small number of people in a battleground state can affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.

        In 2004, President George W. Bush had a nationwide lead of 3,012,171 popular votes. However, if 59,393 Bush voters in Ohio had shifted to Senator John Kerry in 2004, Kerry would have carried Ohio and thus become President. It would be far easier for potential fraudsters to manufacture 59,393 votes in Ohio than to manufacture 3,012,171 million votes (51 times more votes) nationwide. Moreover, it would be far more difficult to conceal fraud involving 3,012,171 votes.

        The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

        For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

        Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

        Like

  3. kohler says:

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not eliminate the Electoral College. It does not make the country a true democracy. We would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

    True democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
    Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

    Like

  4. kohler says:

    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!

    The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

    The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

    The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

    The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in them, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

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

    Like

  5. kohler says:

    Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

    Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

    In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

    In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

    The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

    Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

    Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

    Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

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

    Like

  6. kohler says:

    California’s Democratic legislature and governor did Not sign into law an act giving illegal aliens the right to vote in American elections.

    An election for President based on the nationwide popular vote would eliminate the Democrat’s advantage arising from the uneven distribution of non-citizens

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Well, Kohler, you certainly proved me wrong in gauging your understanding of the electoral system. That was an outstanding dissertation. I’d like to see what you say about how to tackle subjects like fraudulent voting, gerrymandering, and California’s move to give illegal aliens the ability to vote since that seems to be the crux in all elections these days. Not to mention that is the very subject of my article and why I don’t want to see elections shift to popular votes as they can be so easily stacked. (Along with the fact that, had it been so, that American would have had Mr. Global Warming, Algore, in charge when 9/11 came to pass.)

      Like

      • kohler says:

        With the current presidential electoral system, we have seen how 537 votes, all in one state, determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        And how many of those “popular” votes were fraudulent? In the 2012 election just one district in Florida reported 146 votes for every 100 registered voters and they all went to Democrats. California’s Democrats want to give the vote to their two million illegal aliens. If that total were 2,537,179 more votes, how would it make it any more right to give the election to the popular vote just because one or two states create ways to stuff the ballot box even more? That is why the popular vote cannot be justified.

        Like

  7. kohler says:

    In 2012, Florida had a Republican Attorney General.

    If it were actually true that a presidential election in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most popular votes encourages voter fraud then we should surely have seen a voluminous number of prosecutions involving the tens of thousands of ballot boxes in the outcome-determining states in the periods immediately following every presidential election in the country.

    In November 2012, there were Republican Attorneys General in most of the battleground states that determined the outcome of the 2012 presidential election:
    ● Florida—29 electoral votes,
    ● Ohio—18 electoral votes,
    ● Virginia—13 electoral votes,
    ● Wisconsin—10 electoral votes,
    ● Colorado—9 electoral votes,
    ● Pennsylvania—20 electoral votes, and
    ● Michigan—16 electoral votes.

    These seven battleground states with Republican Attorneys General together possessed 115 electoral Votes. President Obama won each of these battleground states by low-single-digit margins. In 2012, President Obama received only 64 more than the 270 electoral votes required for election.

    There were not prosecutions involving the tens of thousands of ballot boxes in these seven outcome-determining states in the 2012 presidential election.

    Are these seven Republican Attorneys General also guilty of not promoting the interests of their own political party in attempting to prosecute cases of election fraud that would, at the minimum, embarrass (if not convict) members of the Democratic Party and embarrass the sitting Democratic President?

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      The Republican Party is guilty of allying with Democrats much more than they are of working against them. The ballot fraud in Port St. Lucie contributed to the removal of Col. Allen West from Congress, a very staunch conservative like Ted Cruz who worked against the corruption in Washington. I’m sure they were all too happy to see him go and they expressed no interest in prosecuting the ballot tampering there.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s