Popular vote popular due to poor understanding of civics

Editor's note: The following have been submitted by Indy readers, unedited, un-fact-checked, and presented in whole. Join the conversation in the comment section below, or via email to letters@csindy.com.

Ms. Miller,

Congratulations on writing an informative and balanced article on the National Popular Vote (Indy, April 22─28, 2020). I must admit that when the topic appeared on the cover of Indy, I was expecting the usual eftist bromides regarding the need to abolish the Electoral College.

After all, the left has contemptuously dismissed the EC as a racist anachronism, no longer reflective of our diverse nation and ever-changing demographics. The reality, however, is that nothing could be further from the truth. The disturbing fact that the National Popular

Vote has gained such traction underscores the lack of civics education in this country, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of how our electoral process functions──and why.

To begin with, the controversy surrounding the National Public Vote is nothing new. As far back as 1787, Delegates to the Constitutional Convention grappled with this very issue, and wisely opted to disregard a Popular Vote as a means of electing the President. The rejection of the National Popular vote to elect a President was decided upon for a number of reasons, which I will briefly canvass. First, The Founding Fathers despised democracies. They correctly equated a democracy to a

lynch mob, where the passions of a mob ruled and the rights of the minority were callously disregarded. This is why the United States is a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy. The Framers desired democratic principles, but not a democracy. After living under the yoke of King George III, the Founders were all too aware that a democracy can easily devolve into a totalitarian state. The Founders inherently understood this, and rejected forming a direct democracy.

Second, the Electoral College serves as a bulwark against regionalism. No candidate can be elected President by winning a super-majority in a few regions of the country possessed of extremely

large populations──which is exactly what the National Public Vote is attempting to accomplish. The interests of smaller states are thus protected, forcing presidential candidates to build broad coalitions that address the concerns of all regions of the country. The NPV would all but ensure populous states with large numbers of electoral votes──such as New York and California──would unduly decide the outcome of Presidential elections. This is how the disingenuous argument that “the National Public Vote will make sure every voter across the

country is relevant,” is shown to be wrong and outright folly. Indeed, the NPV would have the completely opposite effect, by disenfranchising the voters of sparsely populated states and regions.

A tertiary consideration is that regardless of their claims to the contrary, the National Public Vote is undeniably tantamount to the abolishment of the Electoral College. Advocates of this insidious plan

blithely ignore the inherent dangers involved, such as the fact that fraud in one state would adversely affect every state. Moreover, the NPV may very well be unconstitutional, in that it ignores the Article I, Section 10 requirement of the Constitution that interstate compacts receive congressional consent. Fundamentally, the NPV undermines and vitiates the Constitution, and no generation of Americans can arrogate for itself that right.

Fourth, advocates of the NPV are recklessly facilitating the ambition and lust for political power of unscrupulous politicians. Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren are but two of those railing and whining incessantly about the supposed electoral “injustice” of a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the electoral count. These are but a pair of the type of self-serving politicians who selfishly and cynically desire a move to redistribute political power to the densely populated

urban centers of the country, at the expense of rural America. The Electoral College prevents this type of “mob rule” mentality by ensuring that the will, concerns, and interests of voters in smaller

states are given fair and proportionate consideration in Presidential elections. Furthermore, a large segment of Americans──such as myself──are adamantly opposed to large numbers of illegals and refugees helping decide the outcomes of elections. You can rest assured that if the aforementioned groups of people voted primarily Republican, there would already be a fifty foot steel wall on the border, surrounded by a moat filled with crocodiles.

Quite frankly, who the hell do these leftist politicians think they are to assume that they know better than the Framers of the United States Constitution? The undeniable bottom line is that the Electoral College is a critical safeguard against Democratic tyranny. As James Madison

sagely observed in The Federalist, No. 10: many issues of grave consequence “are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” _ Such an overbearing majority that routinely disregards the interests and concerns of a minority is exactly the type of dictatorial governance that advocates of the National Public Vote would impose on the nation.

I sincerely hope that come election day, informed Colorado voters will recognize that the National Public Vote constitutes a grave danger to our Constitutional Republic—and vote accordingly.


John Fracassini

Fountain, CO