The coming war on Electoral College, voter integrity
Exclusive: Joseph Farah reveals how '1-party totalitarian state' could control U.S. elections
Published: 15 hours ago

Remember when Hillary Clinton assured America she would accept the outcome of the 2016 election no matter what?

I do.

That promise, which she made only because Donald Trump wouldn’t, was one that unequivocally meant she would not call for any recounts, that she would not call on surrogates and supporters (like Barack Obama) to make reckless allegations that Russian cyber attacks played a role in the outcome and she would not be a party to denigrating the integrity and sanctity of the election process.

Of course, we all know what that promise was worth.

It’s worth noting that the recounts she participated in resulted in Hillary Clinton losing more votes than she had originally – probably due to catching a tiny proportion of the voter fraud she and her party and campaign systematically engaged in as a matter of course.

Now that it’s all official, and, barring some unforeseen circumstances, Donald Trump will be sworn in as president one month from today, let me make two predictions for 2017:

As we saw after the election of 2000, there were more challenges made to the constitutionality of the Electoral College than America had seen in the previous 211 years of American presidential election history. Next year, it will be worse. The propagandists of the left, the Democratic Party and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) will make the case that the Electoral College is “anti-democratic.” There will be a major push for direct elections of the president. (More on that later.)

The same forces as noted above will conduct a well-funded war on voter integrity – meaning a propaganda war on the idea that voters should actually prove with a document at the polls, like a driver’s license, that they are eligible and duly registered citizens to participate in the election. (More on that later.)

Yet, the real lesson of the 2016 presidential election is that the Electoral College is that it worked exactly the way it was supposed to work – saving us from a situation in which the largest state in the country would have dictated to the vast majority of the states who would be elected.

In case you missed it, all of the margin of Hillary Clinton’s popular vote edge over Donald Trump was a result of California’s lack of political and ideological diversity.

If you take California out of the equation, Donald Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million votes.

California, for all intents and purposes, has become a one-party totalitarian state. Clinton took 61 percent of the vote there in 2016 – a significantly higher percent than Barack Obama got in 2012. And, with the state’s embrace of illegal immigration, rampant voter fraud and widespread flight by long-time citizens and businesses, it will get continually worse.

............................................................

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/the-coming-wa...DLCPeK2poHXP.99

The Purpose of the Electoral College
Evalyn Bennett — December 17, 2016

The Electoral College process defined in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, has numerous purposes and should be supported rather than dismissed. Its primary purpose is to maintain the principles of federalism upon which this unique nation is founded.

We are a union of sovereign states which voluntarily sought to join that union under the condition that each state admitted would be co-equal with every other state. The Electoral College method of choosing the President and Vice President ensures each state, whether large or small in land mass, resources, or population, has some voice in selecting the nation's leaders.

We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. If we were to choose the President and Vice President under a "democratic" method of the nationwide popular vote, the outcome of every Presidential race would always be decided by a handful of urban centers such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City. We would no longer be a government "of the people" but rather a government of a few urban cities and their leaders. How would such a government be representative of the vast numbers of rural and suburban counties in our country?

The county-level election results for 2016 clearly demonstrate the need for the Electoral College process to protect our nation from being ruled by a few urban centers. Of the approximately 3,100 counties in the U.S., Clinton won only 568 (18%) of them! Trump was truly a populist candidate, winning the majority popular vote in 82% of our nation's counties. In fact, in ten states where Clinton won the statewide popular vote, a majority (in some cases an overwhelming majority) of the state's counties chose Trump: Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia. Clinton only won eleven states with both a state-wide majority and a majority of counties (California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Colombia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington). That is hardly a referendum for the winner of the national popular vote to automatically govern all counties of the United States.

..................................................................

Above all be wary of anyone who advocates for a "National Popular Vote" (NPV) method of apportionment. This is a means of requiring a state to allocate its electors based on the national popular vote, erasing the sovereign state's voice in the election, and negating the purpose of the Electoral College and our nation's principles of federalism.


http://freedomoutpost.com/the-purpose-of...ctoral-college/