The Popular Vote vs. the Electoral College|5 Minute Video
Right now, there’s a well-organized, below-the-radar effort to render the Electoral College successfully worthless. It’s called the National Popular Vote, and it would turn our governmental elections into a majority-rule affair.
PragerU is experiencing extreme censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to https://www.prageru.com/ to view our videos free from censorship!
SUBSCRIBE https://www.prageru.com/join/
Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!
Download for Apple iOS ➡ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prage …
Download for Android ➡ https://play.google.com/store/apps/de …
Join PragerU’s text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
STORE! Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/
Script:
In every presidential election, only one question matters: which prospect will get the 270 votes needed to win the Electoral College?
Our Founders so deeply feared a tyranny of the majority that they rejected the idea of a direct choose President. That’s why they produced the Electoral College. For more than two centuries it has actually motivated coalition structure, offered a voice to both huge and small states, and discouraged voter scams.
Regrettably, there is now a well-financed, below-the-radar effort to do away with the Electoral College. It is called National Popular Vote or NPV, and it wishes to do precisely what the Founders rejected: award the task of President to the person who gets one of the most votes nationally.
Even if you agree with this goal, it’s tough to concur with their technique. Rather than amend the Constitution, which they have no chance of doing, NPV plans an end run around it.
Here’s what NPV does: it asks states to sign a contract to provide their governmental electors to the winner of the national popular vote rather of the winner of the state’s popular vote.
What does that mean in practice? It implies that if NPV had been in place in 2004, for example, when George W. Bush won the nationwide vote, California’s electoral votes would have gone to Bush, although John Kerry won that state by 1.2 million votes!
Can you imagine strongly Democratic California calmly awarding its electors to a Republican?
An essential advantage of the Electoral College system is that it decentralizes control over the election. Currently, a presidential election is really 51 different elections: one in each state and one in D.C
.
California’s election code applies just to California and identifies that state’s electors. So a vote cast in Texas can never ever alter the identity of a California elector.
Therefore, a vote cast in Texas will always affect the outcome in California. And the presence of a different election code in Texas constantly has the prospective to unjustly impact a voter in California.
Why?
Due to the fact that state election codes can differ drastically. States have different guidelines about early ballot, registering to vote, and getting approved for the ballot. They have various policies regarding felon voting. They have different triggers for recounts.
Each and every one of these differences is an opportunity for somebody, someplace to file a suit claiming unjust treatment.
Why should a citizen in New York get basically time to early vote than a voter in Florida? Why should a hanging chad count in Florida, but not in Ohio? The list of possible grievances is unlimited.
For the total script, see https://www.prageru.com/videos/popular-vote-vs-electoral-college
source
It’s called the National Popular Vote, and it would turn our governmental elections into a majority-rule affair. Our Founders so deeply feared a tyranny of the bulk that they turned down the idea of a direct vote for President. Hence, a vote cast in Texas will always affect the result in California. States have different rules about early voting, registering to vote, and certifying for the tally. Why should a voter in New York get more or less time to early vote than a citizen in Florida?
