The Sneaky Plan to Subvert the Electoral College for the Next Election

The Electoral College. America’s unique way of picking her President. For it or against it, you might want to know there’s a plan to use the Electoral College to subvert the Electoral College. It’s a sneaky plan and to understan(d), remember that: while it feels like citizens pick the president in one big election, they don’t. The 50 states pick the president. Oh and, District of Columbia. But not you, Puerto Rico — come back when you’re a state. How the states come together and how they vote is what the Electoral College is. Each state gets votes proportional to her population (plus two) and is free to cast these votes however she wants. Most look at how their citizens voted and give all their Electoral College votes to the state-wide winner. But they don’t have to. A couple states cast their votes proportional-ish to their citizens’ preferences. But states are free to vote however. Including against the preferences of their citizens. Let’s make a note of that. But back to this plus two, which is why some citizens *really* don’t like the Electoral College. The plus two means: the states less populous produce preponderate presidential picking power per person. At the extremes, some states get one vote per low hundred thousand people and some states one vote per high hundred thousand. This is how the Electoral College sometimes picks a president that nationwide most citizens didn’t. Because roughly 80% of the state votes are given by population and 20% aren’t. This is on purpose. Dividing power between the levels of citizen, state, and federal is (and was) a central point of the Constitution. It’s a Compromistitution. So if you went back in time to when the states were about to finalize the deal, yelling: (as Future Grey)
Don’t sign that document. I’m from the future. You’re creating an Electoral College where votes for president are distributed proportionally-ish not *perfectly proportionally*. (as present-day narrator Grey)
The reply would be: (as New York girl)
Yes, that’s one of the many compromises we agreed upon. (as Future Grey)
But because of that sometimes a president will be elected with a minority of the popular vote! (as New York girl)
Yes. (as Future Grey)
But the people… (as Constitutional Convention)
The people? You can’t trust the people. Do you think this Compromistitution is for a direct democracy lawl? We’re building a republic here. (as Future Grey)
Yes, I know but would you just look at this spreadsheet of improportion–? (as New Hampshire girl)
–How many states are there in the future? (as Future Grey)
50… maybe 51 depending on how… (as New York girl)
–Wow! What a tremendous success! Go Compromistitution! (as Future Grey)
No, can we focus– (as New York girl)
Do you even own land? (as Future Grey)
No… (as New York girl)
Then why would we listen to you? Goodbye. (as present-day narrator Grey)
Thus the Electoral College is doing what it was designed to do (totally on purpose) and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this. So if you don’t like the Electoral College, then tough noogies for you. And if you do, then nothing to worry about. The Electoral College, in a fortress of axiomatic constitutionality, has survived for a thousand generations of this republic. The only way to break through the front gate would be with a constitutional amendment. But getting enough states to push on the same side of that gromulent tool (while not theoretically impossible) is legislatively improbable. This is where the sneaky plan comes in. (Did you forget about that? Don’t worry, I got carried away.) There is a back door that, if breached, can turn the constitutional fortress protecting the Electoral College into a prison. The sneaky plan is named: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s a terrible name. Probably on purpose to hide sneakiness behind boringness as bureaucratic paperwork camouflage. But I’m calling it NaPoVoInterCo. Which is sort-of-not-really better, but whatever. Here are the sneaky deets. 1. Assume destroying the constitutional protections of the Electoral College is impossible. Point 2 is the note from before that, States can cast their Electoral College votes however they want. These are just facts. But if a state signs on the dotted line, Point 3 is the big deal: NaPoVoInterCo members agree to cast their Electoral College votes for the candidate who gets the most votes from citizens nationwide. This is the “National Popular Vote” in NaPoVoInterCo. The idea behind 2 plus 3 is to make it impossible to have a president most of the citizens didn’t vote for. A state would look not only at the result in her borders, but the results nationwide, and vote that way. Which is all fine and dandy if the state citizens voted with the majority anyway. But if they didn’t, well, you can see a flaw with the plan. Any singular state assaulting the Electoral College on her own, carrying votes against her own citizens, it’s political suicide from without and within. So the plan, had it only three points, is something no state would agree to, requiring one last sneak. Point 4. The plan does not go into effect until enough states, with enough votes to control the Electoral College as a block, join. So, as states sign up, the total number of Electoral College votes they control goes up. But nothing happens. Elections pass and states still vote the traditional way, while recruiting allies to the cause. (as Electoral College)
What are you guys up to over there? (as NaPoVoInterCo girls)
Oh us? Nothing. Just chilling. Just hanging out. (as present-day narrator Grey)
But once a controlling majority of Electoral College votes is reached, Point 4 is satisfied and — when it’s time for the next election — CHARGE! All together, all at once, in through the back, the Electoral College is captured. The fortress is now a prison. From this moment on, the NaPoVoInterCo block promises the candidate who gets the most citizen votes nationwide gets their controlling majority and becomes the president. Without amending the Constitution, the Electoral College has become totally pointless by using its protection of state’s rights to vote however they want, into the vital tool to functionally remove state votes entirely, making the presidential election into one not of states, but of citizens. And there’s no problem with this plan at all. Except, of course the instant this popular coup occurred, states outside the compact will storm the Supreme Court, who will then be forced to deal with everyone yelling all at once about the future of how the president will be elected. Which will be amazing to watch, no matter which side the gavel of constitutional interpretation comes down upon. That’s the plan. It’s been around for a while
That’s the plan. It’s been around for a while and has enough confirmed signatures to be more than half way to the trigger point. And in theory, enough states have laws currently pending in their legislatures, that if passed, would put NaPoVoInterCo into action for the next election. Though, of course, it’s easier to agree to things while they’re far away and uncertain to happen and the reality of voting against your citizens merely theoretical. So it may be much more difficult to get the final triggering two percent than the promised first forty nine. But the Electoral College, for it or against it, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is the sneaky plan to use it to subvert it. [jaunty swing music continues]

  1. NaPoInterCo is a brilliant plan that will cause people to freak out when it inevitably hits courts, as it reveals an injustice that can be enacted at anytime.

    The fact states can vote whatever. If the courts point out that, we all know the citizens can and will freak the fuck out. It's a plan that either it works, or it gets banned and causes an outrage, among everyone. Timing's perfect too, people will pay more attention to politics than ever before.

  2. States literally voting to destroy their own power and influence. That's how we got the amendment that caused Senators to be elected by popular vote, and that caused the massive expansion of federal power we've seen over the last century.

  3. This has primarily been pushed by States with Democratic majorities. What are they going to if a Republican wins the popular vote

  4. Doesn't this plan also rely on Electors playing along with this scheme? They are not obligated to vote the way their state tells them to.

  5. 'The electoral college has survived for a thousand generations of this republic'?
    The entire country is less than 350 years old.

  6. Why should a farmer living in the middle of nowhere vote be worth 5x as much than someone living a city with 500,000 people? Land shouldn't vote.

  7. Republicans will never allow this. They have taken over the court system to ensure that they can have an authoritarian dictatorship. The republic is over.

  8. I used to be in favor of a national popular vote, myself. Regardless of whether the Electoral College was established to avoid the pitfalls of direct democracy, the president is still elected based on the popular vote. It's just that not all votes are equal.

    But what a lot of people don't understand, or want to change, is that the United States isn't a single, unified state, and it wasn't intended to act like one. The federal government exists to augment the prosperity and influence of the several states by providing for free trade and travel, defense, etc. It doesn't exist to accrue power for itself, with the states just being a convenient way to break the country up into administrative regions. Hence the 10th amendment.

    This is meant to divide up power, which has a ton of benefits. First, individuals have much more say over the issues that affect them. Instead of being 1 out of 300,000,000 you're only 1 out of a couple million. Ideally, the state government would cede power to local governments giving people even more say over their lives. Second, individuals have much less say over issues that don't affect them. City folk don't understand the needs of people in the country, and country folk don't understand the needs of people in the city. People in New York, don't even really understand the needs of people in LA. Third, it prevents a single tyrant from gaining control of the entire country. I'm sure you can think of others.

    Of course, the Electoral College isn't, in itself, the dividing line between strong state governments and a strong national government, but it represents that mindset. The fact that the national popular vote is as popular as it is is a sign of how differently we view the US compared to its founding fathers.

  9. Umm, you got it all wrong. The solution is for each state to be like Nebraska and assign their votes based on their own vote within the state. No political suicide for voting for someone who didn't earn it within the state, as each state would still tally the votes of its citizens, but no winner take all for anyone. Its just stupid and Nebraska is the model to follow. You would have Republican electors from California, and Democrat ones in Texas.

  10. My favorite part is the assumption that the side that hates the Electoral College has enough free time apart from flailing about Trump's 149-weeks-impending 'impeachment' to accomplish such a thing. At least you haven't lost your optimism.

  11. It's not just a Supreme Court brawl; when you get a setup that makes winning the big cities the only thing that matters you're going to see crazy changes in how the nation is governed. Calling it a radical realignment would be shortselling it.

  12. The electoral college does two things, if anyone is wondering about the basics.
    1. Prevents states with a larger population from bullying the states with a smaller population. This way, one state doesn't control who is in office, because if it were based solely on population, then the states with the most population would only elect people who suit their needs. By ensuring that each state has a hand in the vote, then only people who have America's best interest in mind get into office. Unless it is another Buchanan situation.
    2. Attempts the prevention of people from another state barging in on another state, and then flooding the voting booths. If a higher population state by a lower population state decides that they want to "borrow" their neighbors voting booths, then that could subvert the entire purpose of the first thing.

  13. Yay, so more power to the big cities! Now candidates don't have to campaign in smaller populated areas and can just campaign in larger populated areas! Way better than the old system! Screw the little guy! 😀

  14. And the first time that the popular vote elects someone these states DIDN'T want in office will cause them to repeal the entire thing.

  15. What possible reason would smaller states have to support this? By giving their electoral votes over to the national vote, states like Wisconsin and Ohio lose significant influence, which they demonstrated in the previous election.

  16. Fucckk libtards and demonrats. They are the enemy of the people and I would sooner go around putting slugs of lead in their heads than negotiate the point in supreme court. They are BEGGING for a civil war. And they wont win one. They will all be hung in the end.

  17. This would be a terrible idea imo. I'm a firm believer that our government and constitution purposely set up a republic, NOT a democracy. The power should reside with the states, which in turn represent the people and interests of that state. By switching to popular vote, you may think you're doing the right thing by choosing the person with the most nationwide votes, but what you're really doing is disregarding your own citizens. If this were to come into effect, let's say a Democrat wins the national popular vote. Do you think for one second that the Alabama state government would give its votes to the Dem? No! And if they did, do you think the neighborhood would be quiet the next day? No, as the people of Alabama would be livid. Same if a Rep gets the votes, will Californians be happy? Mostly no as well. This is one of those things that sounds good and righteous until someone explains how it works and what the practical responses will be. The best compromise imo is what others here have suggested: Proportional electoral vote distribution like Maine and Nebraska.

  18. "WAH! These dudes on the other side are disenfranchising groups of people with [laws], [gerrymandering], [whatever]. Oh, here's a idea: let's disenfranchise our entire state by saying 'We're gonna do what those guys did, not what you guys voted for.'"

  19. Whelp, better move to NYC or LA, because people who live there are going to be the only ones politicians care about appeasing.

  20. Take a look at the states that passed this agreement. It was never once voted on by the People in any state. Just signed off by governors. All of whom were democrats, save for one or two rinos.

  21. Take a look at the states that passed this agreement. It was never once voted on by the People in any state. Just signed off by governors. All of whom were democrats, save for one or two rinos.

  22. Demonrats and libtards always trying to subvert America. They are BEGGING for a civil war, and they will get one, and they will lose, and they will be hung. Every last politician, hollywood director, "professor", and social influencer that has instigated this.

  23. You left out the part where the signed agreement FORCES these states to vote with popular vote. The electorates would no longer have any say whatsoever. We are a democratic republic because that is the absolute best current form of governing. Under a democracy, The tyranny of the majority holds all the power. Essentially all federal decisions would be allocated to purely large cities like NYC, Los Angeles, etc.. in that scenario, the rest of the country would become slaves to the biggest 5 or so cities in america.

  24. Abolish the electoral college so only California and NY with their massive populations pick the president. Because screw the rest of America.

  25. Im for it! The founding fathers were so much smarter than the clowns we have in office now. This is a Hillary propoganda video.

  26. From my understanding of US politics; Hillary won the popular vote but Trump won the election. So if this went into effect then Hillary would have won the last election?

  27. Glad to see a video that actually explains that the states elect, not the citizens. The Framers were very open about being against direct democracy, due to all the ancient examples in Greece and Rome.

  28. I like the EC because popular vote = mob rule = crappy policy. Just promise a bunch of free stuff and the idiots in a handful of big cities will say yes, even if it means doing stuff like destroying industries, local economies, and individual rights because yay free stuff.

  29. Funny thing about this scheme. Most, if not all of the states that have signed onto it are hard blue states. If the 2020 election is close and President Trump gets the most popular votes than by the terms of the Compact those hard blue states would have to cast their EC votes for President Trump.

  30. Understand the "truth" of American voting: Your vote determines nothing but does serve as your express consent to participate in the system. By voting one is saying essentially, "I agree with this system of government". This is why, in it's beginning, those who decided how the government would be constituted denied the right to vote (consent) to anyone who was not male and land owning. The less people who are required to consent to the system strengthens its ability to control them.

  31. We need to safeguard against moblike possession by ideas. Many dense people, densely packed, can think similarly with the wind. The happenstance of some idiotic movement taking over a particularly dense city shouldn't sway the vote as much as mere individual voting would. There's probably other solutions than the electoral college. There's at least reason for it though.

  32. Right… because letting California vote for your state is a great idea! Screw whatever state that doesn't decriminalize giving AIDS to someone says!

    Someone who would live in a red state, if not for a small, but very populous part of my state swung it to blue votes every time, and is royally pissed about stupid laws like I-1639 passing despite most of the counties voting 'FUCK NO!'

    PS: I am so glad that most of our county sheriffs are NOT going to enforce that 2A violating POS law. Seattle and Olympia can threaten all they want, but all sides can play dirty politics.

  33. Even if they all charge at once, the states who are forced to vote against their own population will have an internal political crisis on their hands. The people in those states would surely take it out on their state politicians at the polls the next time around and pull their state out of the compact. Then we're right back where we started.

  34. The electoral college was made in a time when the United States was less one cohesive country and more a coalition of individual state governments that used the national government primarily as a united front on the international scale, not as a power so far above them as it is today. That's why the plus two; to keep smaller and less populous states happy.

  35. This should be called the sneaky plan democrats have to subvert the electoral college. The only people who signed on were democrats with 1 republican being forced after they vetoed it.

  36. As I see it, adoption of the proposed system will change the way voters think. Currently, in large states with a large and enduring majority for one particular party, supporters of another party have no incentive to vote – their party will lose anyway. Many supporters of the minority party will not bother to vote. In the new system, these votes will count towards the popular vote, and hence will have an impact on the outcome. Any party supporting the new system risks incentivising the opposition's supporters to turn out and vote in states where historically there has been little incentive. They may get a nasty shock.

  37. What about voter fraud,there was alot Dems voteing more than one time,and the illegals voteing.See how NewYork doesn't require ID,ect…To much voter fraud.Every body thats a fraud should be locked up.If we would of did these last election there would have a lot of people,in the hundereds of thousands.Posibilea over a million.

  38. This is completely illegal under Article 1 of the Constitution: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;…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."

    I support it though. Civil war would only be good for the ones with all the guns, police and military.

  39. Why the blind love of democracy? The President should be picked by the states, for the federal government should be a representation of the states. Popular votes are always fucking stupid. Everyone says "POPULISM BAD" yet goes on about how more direct democracy is a good thing. Nice retard level thinking there, galaxy brains.

  40. State assembly members voted for the president before "the people" ever did. Many states changed to allocating their electoral college votes via a 'popular vote.' Because, apparently, the House of Representatives, the legislature body that actually passes legislature that affects citizens on a federal level, and with local state, county, and city elections allowing even more direct representation, and this is all apparently not enough, so entirely contrary to the office of the president, 'the people' should also determine who the president is.

  41. Except once your guy wins with a minority vote, your type always goes on about the genius of the electoral college. Once my vote literally always means nothing, because I simply disagree with 51% of 'the people,' violence eventually becomes the only way I will obtain 'representation.' But nah, your galaxy brain is so far advanced that you are surprised I just don't bow down to the superior choice of a random majority of people.

  42. How ironic. Voting against your own people is somehow seen as putting the presidency into the hands of the people. Makes sense.

  43. This portrayal is stupid as fuck. The EC isn't being subverted. The EC isn't being forced to punch itself by the states. The EC is literally comprised of the voting members from the states. So you are literally saying that the states are punching themselves in order to force themselves to vote however they want. Doesn't make one iota of sense.

  44. A true democracy is just mob rule. We've seen mob rule on Twitter and it can be very wrong. I prefer the electoral college and the republic the way it is. I don't care that people get confused.

  45. So, unless I misunderstand, all this really does is change the election into a functional direct democracy and the only issue with this is that if it works the states that didn't contribute will throw a fit in the supreme court. Am I was off base here or is this what it is?

  46. This sounds amazing. A popular vote is the way to and calling it a sneaky plan to subvert the electoral college, while technically true, makes it sound a lot worse than it is. It's just changing to whoever gets the most votes wins. So really everyone's votes in every state will count. More than sneaky subversion, I would call this a genius workaround to fix the problem of your vote not counting while avoiding a constitutional amendment.

  47. Okay, I love this video, but..I'm seeing it used as a defense of the idea that constitutional republics aren't democracies.

    Does anyone have a concise way I can explain to people that indirect democracies are still democracies besides throwing a laptop with LMGTFY directly at their head? Because I'm gonna run out of money at this rate.

  48. I am shocked you didn't even mention that one of the main reasons for the Electoral College to exist, as you pointed out that states can vote HOWEVER they want, was to prevent unfit leaders from becoming president. Read some Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Papers.

    "…men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

    Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

    It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."

    Federalist No.68

  49. This would be the final nail in the coffin for the Republican Party! We would never see another Republican president! (Where do I sign up?)

  50. The electoral college is meant to give representation to both rural and large-city populations.
    It would be an absolute disaster if only large population centers controlled everything.
    Just look at California and New York.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *