Slide 12
“There is no illusion greater than fear.” ~ Lao Tzu
CLAIM: ‘State voting power will be one state, one vote.’ FACT:
The opposition insinuates this goes against the democratic standard of abiding by the people's will: one person, one vote.
The reality is that this discussion has been an ongoing debate since the 1787 Philadelphia Convention.
Understand first that the Framers faced a unique problem that summer of 1787 in Independence Hall.
No nation had ever decided how to select its chief executive. Until then, that decision had been the birthright of a monarchy.
Thus, this decision was one of the most protracted and heated debates during the convention. There were two camps on this issue:
- The president should be chosen by a vote in Congress, and
- The president should be chosen in a direct election by the people.
The compromise to this dilemma is what we now call the Electoral College.
(The pros and cons of the Electoral College)
Progressives have painstakingly tried to erase our history for many decades. They repeat ad nauseum that our system of government is a democracy (majority rule) when in fact, they know that to be a lie. Our system of government is a Constitutional Republic.
The Framers of our Constitution carefully deliberated on the best method to ensure every citizen’s voice would be heard. They rejected direct democracy (majority rule), understanding it would lead to mob rule. Instead, they opted for a republic where the majority is tasked with the duty to protect the rights of the minority.
Why does the opposition want the voting to be population-based?
It’s simple. The progressives know they control the major population centers in this country:
2020 Presidential Popular Vote by County
By pressing for a national popular vote, they eliminate the voice of the less populated areas of this country. In a nation of approximately 331 million people, the top 10 cities have a total population of about 26 million.
Voter apathy demonstrated over the last 50 years, with less than two-thirds of the eligible voters participating, will give the population centers a disproportionate advantage in deciding elections.
And this does not even touch on the issue of extending voting rights to illegal immigrants.
A convention of states for proposing amendments is a meeting of equal sovereigns, where each state must have an equal voice in shaping the future of this republic.
Historical conventions operated on a one-state, one-vote principle, a precedent state legislatures have accepted for the past 350 years. Any changes to this practice must originate from a grassroots movement, requiring agreement from 26 state legislatures to establish a new precedent.
The National Popular Vote Compact, which is trying to eliminate the Electoral College and institute direct democracy, is again attempting to amend the Constitution without following the prescribed legal process.
The Electoral College is enumerated in Article II of the Constitution, and Article V is the only legal way to amend our founding document.
You need to ask yourself why progressives always try to circumvent the law. Could it be that voters soundly defeat their agenda every time it is presented to them?
