Commentary: Rigging the election through National Popular Vote Compact

Article I Section 10, Powers Denied to the States: Paragraph 3 “No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, Or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.” U.S. Constitution.

There it is as plain as day, no state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state,”

So, according to the Constitution, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has committed a crime worse than breaking any law but has ignored the Constitution of the United States which makes it very unconstitutional! Such a compact is an arrogant act by a group of Democrats who belong to the Democratic Party in trying to rig the presidential election by bypassing the Electoral College.

The compact just amounts to a band of arrogants trying to steal the federation rights of the states which is granted to them by the Constitution and is maintained within the Electoral College. So, Delaware is now so proudly about to, or by this time, joined this band?

So, the complaints keep coming up how unfair, how undemocratic, how some votes don’t count as much as other votes and how outmoded it is for this generation of time. Such is just a bunch of baloney.

Here are some things to consider about some of these complaints, which can be confirmed by Internet sources about the 2016 election. In the state of New York which the Democratic candidate won by 1.5 2 million popular votes from only 16 counties, did the votes of the voters in the other 46 counties of New York count as much as the 16? New York has 62.

Also, in our Delaware that the Democratic candidate won, how much did the 99,596 combined votes of Kent (36,989) and Sussex (62,607) counties compare with the 162,905 of New Castle County which gave her its three electoral votes? Of course, the answer is simply given, because of larger populations. Just what the forefathers feared as to why the Electoral College was acceptable both then and today.

A National Popular Vote would always give an advantage to the larger states which are usually liberal Democratic in voting. The 2016 election is a very good example that cannot be honestly denied of what could have happened had that election been conducted by a National Popular Vote.

According to the website, it was indicated that, had the 2016 presidential election been determined by the National Popular Vote instead of the Electoral College vote, it would have allowed only 15 percent of the country to control the remaining 85 percent. Is that to be the future of America if this unconstitutional compact is allowed to exist? It will destroy the federation principle of America and which the Electoral College maintains.

There are three basic principles of government on which America was founded. America was to be a democracy, a republic and a federation. The Electoral College maintains all three. As a democracy, does not the Electoral College provide in every state the democratic principle for the will of the people of each state by the majority of popular votes to select the electors allotted to their respective state?

There is, by states, an indirect national popular vote. As a republic, a representative form of government, does not the Electoral College provide that the electors chosen in each state by the majority of the popular votes will be the electors who will represent the majority of the people of each respective state when the chosen electors meet in their state capitals in December to cast their electoral votes for the presidential candidate of their choice?

As a federation, does not the Electoral College provide for the inclusion of all 50 states and D.C. in the consideration of the differences of the makeup of each state whether large or small to select electors by majority popular vote who will represent each state and DC in selecting a President?

Yes, it may be said that the Electoral College may not be perfect, but its compromise was better than any other method thought of back yonder by the forefathers or yet by anyone today. Again, there just might not be any better description of the Electoral College than what Alexander Hamilton said of it after it was accepted by Congress back yonder, “If the matter of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”

The Rev. Jack M. Beck, of Dover, is a teacher in the Caesar Rodney School District.

Facebook Comment