Home»Commentary»Virginia Pushed National Popular Vote Against Constitution – History Details How Our Election System Was Subverted Initially

Virginia Pushed National Popular Vote Against Constitution – History Details How Our Election System Was Subverted Initially

Pinterest WhatsApp

Friends, it’s time to take the glove off and get down to business.  Normally, information and commentary are given in order to demonstrate the problem(s) in government along with what citizens should do to thwart the continued push by government to subvert the power of the people, placing that power into the hands of unelected bureaucrats.  Whether it is a regional government under a central bureaucracy established under the USMCA or our current government structure, we, as citizens, are losing the battle because we only go so far then stop.  All these charlatan crooked politicians have to do is wait out the wave then proceed as business as usual.  Virginia is the perfect example of that.

Now that the politicians have passed unconstitutional gun prohibition/confiscation laws, the House delegates have overwhelmingly passed legislation to award the State’s electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Breitbart News covered the story.

The Virginia House of Delegates has passed legislation seeking to award its electoral votes to whomever the wins the popular vote.

House Bill 177 passed with a 51-46 vote in the Democrat-majority House after being handed off by the Privileges and Elections Committee last week. Should the Senate also approve, Virginia will officially become part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

“Under the compact, Virginia agrees to award its electoral votes to the presidential ticket that receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia,” a bill summary states. Further:

The compact goes into effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have joined the compact. A state may withdraw from the compact; however, a withdrawal occurring within six months of the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President has qualified to serve the next term.

So far, 15 states, along with Washington D.C., have joined. The idea gained momentum as an answer to President Donald Trump’s electoral college victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016, despite her approximately three million popular vote lead.

Breitbart News Senior-Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak explained why many critics feel the popular vote could disenfranchise voters outside of major population centers, especially in a close election:

Under a national popular vote system, it would be possible for Nevada — or one of the other swing states — to vote for the candidate who lost the national popular vote, only to see its Electoral College votes awarded to the winner of the national popular vote. In a close election, that could elect a president — against the will of Nevada voters — who otherwise would have lost the election under the present system.

Moreover, the “national popular vote” would, critics say, reward candidates for concentrating their time and resources on the most densely populated parts of the country. It would also create an incentive for fraud in the jurisdictions most susceptible to it. California, with its new system of “ballot harvesting,” in which unregistered activists may deliver an unlimited number of mail-in ballots, would be a prime candidate, as rival campaigns competed to stuff ballot boxes. [Emphasis Mine.]

Democrat Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak recently made a similar case when announcing his decision to veto the legislation. “Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests,” he said, “and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

“As Nevada’s governor, I am obligated to make such decisions according to my own conscience,” Sisolak concluded. “In cases like this, where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada.”

Using the 2016 presidential election as an example, Hillary Clinton won the big metropolitan areas which typically vote Democrat and States where illegal alien invaders were allowed to vote, States using “ballot harvesting”, and States with unprecedented incidences of voter fraud.  It was the “fly over States” who tipped the scale to elect Trump.  Clinton, during several interviews, bemoaned her loss declaring that she won areas that had the highest GDP (gross domestic product), which has nothing to do with electing a president.  However, it increased the momentum of the “national popular vote”, which would secure a Democrat party candidate win using fraudulent voting systems as well as back door tampering with election results through algorithms used by middlemen before submitting to the out of the country third party.

Visit Blackboxvoting.org to see how the back-door algorithms work to flip the votes to the “preferred” candidate, without voters realizing their vote was changed in some instances.  It happened in local elections in some states, as well as the 2016 and prior presidential elections.

The question is, “how did our election system become so jilted from what is contained in the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America?”  That is a deep well that began between 1820 and 1824.  So, this is not something new;  but, it has become morphed into something it shouldn’t.

When establishing how the president and vice-president would be chosen, the framers thought all the bases had been covered.  However, they could not predict or foresee certain events, such as the formation of political parties.  It was this formation of parties that caused an issue in the 1800 election, resulting in the change of the original process to the process outlined in the Twelfth Amendment.

Fast forward to the election of 1824.  By this time, most States were choosing electors by “popular vote”.  And, it was determined to be relatively important to record the people’s vote.  When voting for the electors, the people would vote for an elector who would vote for the candidate preferred, securing the electoral vote for the State based on the people’s vote for electors.  That would all change when States began to record the people’s vote for presidential candidates.  Moreover, nomination of candidates by congressional caucus was rejected and replaced by groups in each State nominating candidates.  Neither of the four candidates, vying for president – Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, William Crawford, and John Quincy Adams – secured a majority throwing the election of the president to the House.

For every presidential election afterward, the “people’s vote” or popular vote was recorded only because it was thought important to record it.  However, in every subsequent election, one can see the elector votes through the Electoral College mimicking the “people’s vote”.

In 1828, the two-party system emerged sparking the people’s interest in elections.  It was during this time that the development of a sophisticated national network of party organizations occurred.  Local political party groups developed and held parades, barbecues, tree plantings and other event to promote the party and the party’s candidate.  And, it was during this election that “mudslinging” and “dirty” political campaigns, replete with exaggerated rumors and falsehoods began.

The “spoils system of political patronage” or what some might call “cronyism” began with the presidential election of 1832.  A third party, the Anti-Masons, emerged and held the first national presidential nominating convention.  It was a practice that caught on with the other two parties resulting in the national presidential nominating convention replacing the “discredited caucus system of nomination”.

The Whig Party appeared on the political scene in 1836, nominating three candidates – William Henry Harrison, Daniel Webster, and Hugh White.  The Democrats nominated Martin Van Buren, Vice President at the time, and chose as Van Buren’s running mate Richard Johnson.  So, it was the Democrat party that introduced the duo ticket.  Van Burn won as president and Johnson was selected as vice president by the Senate.

By 1844, the party system was fully entrenched between two major parties and a third or fourth popping up on occasion.  From 1844 to 1856, three candidates for president vied for the office with each having selected running mates.  The campaign of Martin Van Buren in 1848 became the fledgling beginnings of the current Republican Party.

The Whig Party ceased to exist by 1856 and the Know-Nothing party appeared as a nativist American party.  A new sectional party consisting of ex-Whigs, free-soil Democrats and anti-slavery groups also appeared.  By this time, the Democratic Party was declaring itself “the national party”.  However, the Republican party was coming into its own.  And, fast forward to the election of 1868, the Democrat and Republican parties survived while the other parties fell away, leaving the super majority parties putting forth candidates for the popular vote, which determined the awarding of electoral votes in each State.

That changed in 1892 when the Populist Party formed.  However, by 1900, the Populist Party disappeared.  It was 1912 that saw the Socialist party come forward while Teddy Roosevelt split from the Republican party to form the Progressive Party, or Bull Moose Party.  Conventions were cemented in the political arena by this time.

So, as we see, the party system with conventions formed to nominate their preferred candidates and electoral votes rewarded based on the recording of the popular people’s vote was well cemented in the political scene of the united States, subverting the process outlined in the Twelfth Amendment and continuing on through today.

Now, factor in the National Voter Registration Act, where the federal government is usurping the authority of the States to determine the qualification for voting.  The federal government is unlawfully usurping its authority mandating that illegal alien invaders have the right to vote.  This essentially takes away the right of the States to a republican form of government.

Currently, the States elect the governor, along with the running mate as lieutenant governor, by popular vote, as well as representatives and senators for the State general assembly.  As populations of States grow, cities become more populated and large cities become vast metropolises.  Districts are required to be redrawn.  And, the population centers, boasting the majority of anti-constitutionalists, are divided into more districts, resulting in these centers becoming the majority voice, edging out the suburban and rural voters.  It has happened in Virginia and California.  Unfortunately, it may be coming to your State as well.

Isn’t it plain to see how the voting process has been hijacked by the party system with States capitulating early on to using a “record” of the populace votes as a means of “popular vote” to award the States’ Electors votes?  Local gatherings of groups in States soon turned to “primaries” where the majority vote resulted in the announcement of the party nomination for president being announced at the national party convention.  Both parties, at the State level, secured the continuation of the supermajority two-party system by excluding other party nominations through exorbitant qualification, aka money, to appear on the ballot.

None of this was envisioned by the founders.  If it was, the founders would have placed safeguards into the system to prevent what we are seeing today.  Now that we as citizens know how this all went awry, it is time for citizens to retake control of the system.  The system is unconstitutional and weighted to the advantage of the major parties.  Continuing to vote in this system seals our own fate and changes nothing.  The system has to be reclaimed from the parties and cronies in the States to affect real change.  And, those currently serving in office should be removed and recalled since they are guilty of perpetuating the system.  Then, these individuals should be charged and prosecuted for their crimes.

If found guilty, punishment should commiserate with the severity of the crime.  But, all should be tarred and feathered for good measure.  It would be an experience they never forget.

Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

Suzanne Hamner

Suzanne Hamner (pen name) is a registered nurse, grandmother of 4, and a political independent residing in the state of Georgia, who is trying to mobilize the Christian community in her area to stand up and speak out against tyrannical government, invasion by totalitarian political systems masquerading as religion and get back to the basics of education.
Previous post

At Least James Carville Is Being Honest About His Deceit

Next post

Number Of Coronavirus Cases Explode - Is Worst Yet To Come?