Democrats close to changing the way we elect president to winner of the national popular vote

If you're a young American--say 18 or so--and went to the generally awful public schools (though there are still a few good ones), you almost certainly don't know much about the electoral college.

See, the Founders were smart guys.  They knew that if we elected the president by the total popular vote, the president would always be from the states with the largest populations--which back then were New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

That obviously disfavored smaller states, which the Founders needed in order to ratify the marvelous new Constitution.

The electoral college was a compromise that slightly diluted the raw popular vote power of the three big states.  And it seems to have worked pretty well so far.  But the Dems don't agree, since twice in the last 23 years their candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote.

And since the Democrat party runs most of the states with the biggest populations, and runs big cities even in states with more Republican voters, the Democrat party has tried for years to find a way to have presidents elected by the winner of the national popular vote, since that would ensure their party would win every presidential election.

Makes perfect sense, eh?  They'd win the White House every time, with all the potential for billions in graft, grift and assorted corruption.  Problem is, the electoral college method is written into the Constitution, right near the top (Article II), and can only be abolished by the amendment process.

Fortunately for the Democrats, the Founders made it easy to amend the Constitution, probably because they knew times would change and they wanted the Constitution to be able to change easily too, eh?  Sort of like a "living document," as Democrats constantly bleat.

So, let's see how well your K-12 school taught you:  To become effective, an amendment must be ratified by a certain percentage of states.  What's that percentage? 40?  50?  60? Two-thirds?  Make your guess out loud and then highlight the next line for the answer.  
[answer: 3/4ths of the states, so 38]

(For the record, the 'graf above that says the Founders made it easy to amend the Constitution was satire.  They did the opposite.  They knew they'd created a masterpiece and wanted to make sure future generations would debate long and hard before they mucked around with it.)

So let's say the Democrats used their control to pass the amendment in both House and senate, and 20 big states voted to ratify.  That still leaves 'em way short, and residents of small states probably won't be thrilled to weaken what small power the still have.  So the amendment route isn't likely to work.

But as I've noted many times here, the Democrat party never, ever takes no for an answer.  They're cunning and implacable beyond words.  And sure enough, way back in 2001 two liberal Democrat law professors hit on a way to elect presidents by the winner of the national popular vote *despite the explicit provision in the Constitution specifying the electoral college method *--and without having to amend it.

If you think that's not possible--and shouldn't be--then never vote for a Democrat.

The scheme uses a feature of the Constitution called the Compact Clause, which allows states to enter into any desired agreement with each other, subject to congressional approval.  

In 2001 two law professors--Akhil Amar and his brother Vikram Amar, wrote a paper suggesting that Democrat states pass identical laws pledging that they'd award their state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who won their state.

This agreement would take effect as soon as states representing 270 electoral votes signed on.  

So let's see how much you've heard about this stealthy scheme.  How many of the 270 EVs needed to activate this scheme have passed laws joining it so far?  Take a guess.

As of this moment, states with 205 EVs have completely passed laws joining the compact, and the measure is "pending" in states with 74 more.  If it passes in those states--which could happen at any time--the "compact" becomes effective if approved by congress.

All perfectly legal, eh?

The hoot is that many states with small populations but Democrat-controlled legislatures--Alaska, Maine, Nevada, South Carolina--have passed the measure in at least one chamber, meaning the Dem lawmakers are cheerfully cutting the throats of their own citizens by handing power to the big states--but also ensuring their party always wins.  
Wow.

Now, how many of you had heard a single word about this scheme?  That's especially interesting given that the damn thing was within a hairs-breadth of becoming effective!  And how many of you knew *that*?  

Are you surprised that the Mainstream Media has kept such a *huge* change to our system almost entirely out of the news?  I'm not.  The Media would give anything to ensure the Dems always win.

Like other schemes designed to increase the power of the political left, including ranked-choice voting, the corrupt private financing of local election offices (known colloquially as “Zuckerbucks”), the Democrats’ failed "HR.1" effort to have all national elections run by the federal government, and attempts to abolish the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, National Popular Vote should be rejected.

Instead what you'll see is a huge increase in the number of Media stories about polls allegedly showing that 60 or 70 or even 80 percent of "voters" favor electing presidents by the winner of the national popular vote.

This brings us to the topic of congress approving the compact.  The Constitution is silent on the percentage needed to "approve," which suggests a simple majority.  For the first two years of biden's reign, the Dems controlled both chambers--in which case approval would be automatic.

Source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact