What the Democrat Party Offers in the 2020 Election

An evidentiary analysis.

A great deal of the focus on the November 3, 2020 presidential election is on two things (1) the personalities and physical and mental capabilities of the two candidates, President Donald Trump and Joe Biden and (2) blaming or not blaming Donald Trump for the Coronavirus. (A menace whose spread is apparently no respecter of political persuasion, predictions by scientists or health experts, masking or not masking, lockdown mandates or no lockdown mandates, and hot weather or cold weather.)

But this election is not really about Donald Trump   or   Joe Biden . 

This election is really about what the consequences of implementing the policies of each party will be:  The Democrat Party is reportedly about- fundamentally transforming America!!  Couldthat really be true?  To answer that question it is necessary to look at (1) what players constitute and have a say in what will happen should the Democrat Party gain control in 2020 and (2) what the Democrat Party is saying officially (“Unity Task Forces” plan) and unofficially (television ads for Joe Biden) about what they plan to do if they gain control. (see companion post on What the Republicans Offer in the 2020 election)

Democrat Party Players – Policies, Plans, Intended Outcomes

The policies, plans and desired outcomes that would result from a victory in the 2020 election by the Democrat Party requires study to discern and specify as (1) the messaging comes from several different sources, (2) the messages of intent delivered depend on the audience, and (3) identifying who among the influencing forces and contributing entities will dictate the policies and plans.   Thus, to assess what might be the outcome of a Democratic victory requires identification of the various forces influencing / controlling the Democratic Party and then an assessment of the degree to which and how each of the forces are liable to affect the countries near and long-term future if Joe Biden is elected president and Democrats gain one or both houses of Congress.

The Democrat Party is now funded, led, supported and directed by an incongruous, alliance of powerful, disparate forces that have coalesced to take control of the Federal Government beginning in 2021. The stated plans and objectives to be implemented, if that control is achieved, and the influence of the parties working on behalf of the Democrat Party have intended effects that go well beyond this election.  The promised changes could dismantle our economy and our economic system, diminish individual freedoms and result in greater Federal Government control of our, and our children’s lives in perpetuity.  It is evident, by their words, actions, and or funding that these various entities are in league with and support/fund/protect the Democratic Party.

So, who are the players and what are the forces working in league with Democrat Party to put and keep the Democrats in power and influence America’s future.

  1. The Giant Social Media / Internet Companies —Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google.  These four companies comprise 4 out of the 5 largest companies in the United States.  They are now controlling, to a large extent, what information people see and hear on social media platforms, thereby directly and subliminally influencing behaviors including how people will vote. It is well documented that these companies are subverting free speech – suppressing information and blocking commentary by conservative individuals and conservative sites that are favorable to Republicans and unfavorable to Democrats.  Most recently Facebook and Twitter taking down the news story on the New York Post’s discovery of Hunter Biden’s laptop with information connecting Joe Biden to Hunter’s Burisma and China contacts and taking down the President’s press secretary’s account for passing the information on. This action caught national attention. However, behind the scenes thousands of conservative voices and many sites relaying conservative views are being silenced on social media. 

Why all these companies support the Democrat Party is speculative but one reason may have to do with the Republican Party’s efforts/pledge to take away the special immunity granted to the Social Media Giants by Congress – Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – that has resulted in censoring of conservative speech and news unfavorable to the Democrats and  allows them to censor / block what they wish without being sued.

The future outcome, if the Democratic Party wins, and these companies are not reined in from censoring and blocking communication, is that these companies will continue shutting down conservative views and thus greatly influence/control future elections (as they claimed they did in 2016) and thus keep the Democrat Party in power as they get better and bolder at it.  

2. Academia and the Teaching of American History (Primarily universities but their Anti-American and progressive reach now extends through high school, middle school, elementary school and even into kindergarten.) The Democrat Party plan for free college will result in exposing more and more young voters to the activist / progressive mentality on University Campuses. Liberal University Administrators outnumber conservative Administrators by a ratio of 12 to 1, which is twice as high an imbalance as the next most liberal profession (legal).  The list of endorsements by Academia on Wikipedia shows 127 endorsements for Biden and 0 for Trump.

3. Anarchist / revolution indoctrinated youth (mostly college age students and recent university graduates over the last 15 years or so) who have been indoctrinated in anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, socialist ideology (This age group is ripe for joining rioting and protesting, as has been seen in the summer of 2020). The influence this group of people may have on the Democrat Party in the future is unknown, but if the 2020 protests are any indication if “promised” progressive policies are not enacted this group may be a force for the Democrat Party to recon with and eventually succumb to.

4. Left Leaning Mainstream Media and Cable Networks and Newspapers -Owned, and directed by just a few media billionaires who control what news and information is disseminated from their newspapers and television outlets and how the information that is disseminated is biased/skewed to (1) promote the Democrat Party, (2) Condemn conservative thought and (3) vilify President Trump and help remove him from office. (Evidence for this approach has been fully and unapologetically on display for the last 4 years). Although “Love Trumps Hate” was a 2016 Election slogan used by Democrats, when Trump won, hate for Trump became widespread and visceral and was shamefully cultivated, and enhanced by the mainstream and cable media who have non-stop denigrated the President. “Hate Trump and all his Supporters” has been the in vogue rule of the media since 2016.

Journalistic honesty, independence, and diligence in investigation to determine the truth has clearly been absent.  Linkage in message between the Democrat Party and their sycophant media has been clearly on display.  With a large majority (70% – pew research) of listeners accepting what is presented as factual gives great power to the media / and in turn concomitant allegiance to voting for the Democratic Party is ingrained. This current lock step setup between the media and the Democrat Party promises, if the Democrat Party wins in 2020, to keep the Democrats, with control of the media, in control of the country politically for a long time to come.

5. Billionaires and Wall Street, are now major contributors to the Democrat Party and to Democrat candidates (e.g. George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Dustin Moskovitz). According to Forbes, 36 billionaires gave six-figure plus amounts to Joe Biden (1.24 million to $100,000) and, as of June 30, 109 billionaires had contributed to Joe Biden. Wall Street donations for Joe Biden outpace those to Trump by 5 to 1. The accepted “conventional wisdom” that the Republicans are for the rich and the rich are for Republicans is no longer true.  Despite Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren railing against billionaires and Wall Street, the billionaires, millionaires and Wall Street tycoons are funding the Democrats in droves and Senator Sanders doesn’t seem to object since it might put him in the driver’s seat for instituting his brand of socialism via a top spot in a Biden presidency.

6. Late night television hosts and Hollywood celebrities – In addition to the liberal news media, these celebrities flagrantly promote the Democrat Party and mock and condemn President Trump and conservatives.

7. Violent, militant Antifa, Black Lives Matter and other left-wing militant organizations. These organizations have terrorized conservative students and speakers on college campuses and have self-identified as Communist or , Marxist, Anti-American organizations bent on overthrowing America and/ or American institutions (e.g. one of Black Lives Matter core values is that they are: “committed to disrupting the Western prescribed nuclear family structure”. While Antifa is not specifically endorsed by the Democrat Party, neither have they been condemned by the Democrat Party for their violent attacks on conservative individuals and groups nor were they called out for their well-documented looting and rioting and attacks on police in the 2020 riots. (That is until after the DNC convention when it no longer looked politically expedient to remain mum.)  The logical, apparent influence / role of these groups if the Democrat Party gains power would be to lobby and or protest (perhaps violently) for more progressive policies. Or to unleash their bullying, protesting tactics on any resistance to such policies by conservatives or Christian based groups.  These groups are not an idle threat.

8. Democrat Party official, “mainstream” leadership (the DNC, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi) and Democrat Congressional Representatives. The “mainstream” Democrat Party “default platform” for the last four years was essentially “Hate Trump -Russian Collusion- Impeach Trump and Block all Republican Initiatives they reasonably could that would give Trump any credit”. That was the essence of the Democrat plan and primarily what they stood for and accomplished for the last 4 years. They have worked continuously to disrupt and delegitimize the Trump presidency. However, the Democrat Party, wisely in the months prior to the 2018 mid-term congressional elections put the “impeach trump activity” into dormancy (on hold) and a 2018 Mid-term Democrat platform emphasizing the fostering of  healthcare improvements was adopted in its stead.   This messaging to its faithful Democrat rank and file base was successful and the Democrat Party regained control of the House of Representatives and attendant committee leadership.  Under pressure from the far left “thought leaders” of the Party the “Impeach Trump” platform immediately resurfaced and the promised Healthcare Focus on which Democrat candidates were elected was not heard from again.  

Now Presidential candidate Joe Biden and his far to the left running mate Kamala Harris (ranked most liberal Senator by GovTrack) join Pelosi and Schumer as the Democrat Party official leadership and ostensibly would formulate and guide the plans, policies, and outcomes to be pursued if the Democrat Party prevails in the 2020 election.

 Although Joe Biden is being shrewdly portrayed as a moderate / non radical Presidential candidate (representative of the Democrat Party of old) in actuality the plans and polices to be pursued if Joe Biden is elected are not moderate at all.   These plans were formulated, apparently with Joe Biden’s blessing, by Bernie Sanders and the DNC into the 110 page “Unity Task Forces” Democrat Party Platform and this plan is what Joe Biden has signed onto.

Despite Biden’s claim that “I am the Democrat Party” it is readily evident that he is not. Joe Biden limped out of the first 3 Democrat Primaries with 14%, 8% and 19% of the vote, garnering him 2 distant 4th place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire and a poor second in Nevada to Bernie Sanders 40%. The DNC, Congressman James Clyburn and the Democrat Party Leadership , recognizing the countries inherent animas toward a “socialist” candidate and the difficulty such a candidate would have in defeating President Trump coalesced around the more acceptable but less dynamic and less inspiring, “converted moderate”, Joe Biden.  Biden, was then propped up for the nomination but the radical polices were maintained and in fact were ostensibly authored or greatly influenced by Bernie Sanders.

The DNC’s “gambit” on Joe Biden as the presidential nominee took place at the end of February before the Coronavirus menace began to dominate and the Democratic Party leaped on fear mongering the virus via the media and blaming President Trump for mis-handling the Coronavirus as a potential political advantage. However, the Democrat leadership at that primary time (late February) was involved with impeaching the President. Actually at the time the Coronavirus arose in the US they discounted the President’s worries/actions on Coronavirus (Speaker Pelosi was in San Francisco’s China Town encouraging patronage on Feb 24th and New York City Mayor DeBlasio was encouraging New Yorkers to “get out and live their lives” on March 2nd).  President Trump had issued the China travel ban on Jan. 31st (which Joe Biden criticized as xenophobic) and Trump initiated the “slow the spread” orders on March 16, when there were just 3,000 U.S. cases and 60 deaths. Now, despite the factual history on the US response, Joe Biden blames Trump for being too slow and causing “all 200,000 US deaths”, thereby weaponizing, with the aid of the media, the Coronavirus tragedy for political advantage. The condemnation of Trump’s handling of the intractable Coronavirus (which has baffled scientists and carried out its malevolence with impunity) is a total red herring, a ploy, unfairly, inaccurately, and shamefully thrown in by the Democrat Party to distract from their extremely progressive plans and policies dictating the country’s future.

9. The far to the left “unofficial leaders” of the Democratic Party, are much more radical and outspoken, they include: (1) the well- publicized, media promoted, avowed socialists (Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the squad), (2) most of the Democrat Presidential primary candidates, and (3) a 100 member progressive caucus in the House of Representatives (includes Bernie Sanders from the Senate).  These individuals, before, during and after the primary debates identified what are generally regarded as the true plans, policies, and outcomes being proposed by the Democrat Party, including: M

Socialized medicine/Medicare for all, elimination of fossil fuels / fracking and the end of our recently achieved energy independence, dismantling of border protections and support for sanctuary cities, elimination of charter schools, abortion up to the point of birth, free health care for illegal aliens, gun confiscation, free college tuition, defunding the police and eliminating ICE, repeal of the recent tax cuts /child credits,  and re-imposition of the regulations removed by the Trump administration, etc.  These and other progressive plans   are incorporated in the Biden -Sanders Plan – the “Unity Task Forces” document. Further, the outspoken proponents of these policies have already been announced as the leads for implementation in the Biden Cabinet – Sanders on Healthcare policy, Ocasio-Cortez – co-chair of a climate task force, Beto O’Rourke – in charge of Gun Control.

Expected Outcomes

All of the above entities are in league with the “modern” Democratic Party. They, symbolically form the Hydra, a 9-headed, prodigious, colossus, that works toward putting and keeping the Democrat Party in power.

After examination of the role and influence that each play, the expected outcomes if the Democrat Party gains control of the Presidency and both house of Congress in the near term and long term seems clear. Namely (1) adoption of the big government / socialistic plans and policies identified above under the analysis of the official and unofficial leadership of the Democrat Party which will fundamentally transform our society and (2) continued and further control/selective presentation of news and information by the media and further restriction of conservative speech on social media, college campuses and elsewhere thereby deceptively controlling the electorate and the elections.  

The ties and agreements these entities arrangements are in descript and are generally veiled, ignored, denied or rejected as Republican propaganda. The policies being promoted are, to a large degree, kept from being acknowledged/emphasized to the rank and file Democrat voter (but are well known and promoted by the progressive / left wing faction of the Democrat Party which dominated the Democrat Presidential primary voting).  

The extreme, progressive leftist platform of the Democrat Party, that was clearly evident in the Democrat Primary Debates, are not include in or focused on in the current TV ads for Joe Biden for president. Now that the primaries are over and the national election season is in full swing, not only has Joe Biden been “hidin” so has the true agenda of the Democrat Party.  Rather the messaging orchestrated by the Democratic Party and the Media to the American people shows Joe Biden as a moderate, calming force who loves America, who will not raise taxes on anyone making less than 400,000, will improve education, and improve healthcare. This non-descript, non-specific messaging being used is similar to the tactic used by the Democrat Party in the 2018 mid-terms and disguises the true agenda of Democrat party after the 2020 election to the rank and file Democrat voter.  The Joe Biden for President ads do not tout or even discuss the any of the progressive, transforming, and potentially economically devastating platform agenda items in the “Unity Task Forces” Democrat Party Platform.  Rather, Joe Biden is shown making non-descript, non-specific promises of better education, better healthcare and maintaining social security along with an anti-Trump mantra inexplicably, and illogically criticizing and blaming Trump for the Coronavirus plague.  That is what is heard by the American public. Dismantling border protections, allowing sanctuary cites, ending use of fossil fuels and fracking, defunding police, taking away private health care plans covering 180 million Americans and going to “Public Healthcare Option run by the Federal Government (socialized medicine), eliminating bail requirements for criminals, elimination of charter schools, funding of abortions, getting rid of the Trump tax cuts and increased child credits and the other progressive/radical plans promoted by the Democrat Presidential Primary Candidates and included in the Democrat Party platform are not mentioned as the Democrat Party objectives in the Joe Biden for President ads.

So, back to the original question – Can and will the Democrat Party do as they claim and fundamentally transform America if they gain control in 2020? Looks as if the answer is yes.

Thanks for reading.

What the Republicans Offer in the 2020 Election

A great deal of the focus on the November 3, 2020 presidential election is on two things (1) the personalities and physical and mental capabilities of the two candidates, President Donald Trump and Joe Biden and (2) blaming or not blaming Donald Trump for the Coronavirus. (A menace whose spread is apparently no respecter of political persuasion, predictions by scientists or health experts, masking or not masking, lockdown mandates or no lockdown mandates, and hot weather or cold weather.)

But this election is not really about Donald Trump   or   Joe Biden . 

This election is really about what the consequences of  implementing the policies of each party will be: 

The Republican Party plans and policies are about: preserving America!!

The Democrat Party and their media / big tech / radical left-wing allies are about: fundamentally transforming America!!  (See the Biden/Sanders “Unity Task Forces” plan ) 

The Republican Policies, Plans, Intended Outcomes

The policies, plans and desired outcomes that are expected to be associated with a victory in the 2020 election by the Republican Party (as asserted by the Republican Party and President Donald Trump, and as understood by the Republican rank and file voters), are primarily about:

  1. Preserving America, our Country, as we know it and have known it for almost 250 years.  Protecting our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court and our System of Checks and Balances, our Democratic Institutions, and the Electoral System.
  • Eradicating the Covid19 scourge through development of effective therapeutics and an effective vaccine while rebuilding the economy and reestablishing record setting employment and wage growth for all Americans, bringing back jobs to America and ensuring critical health and safety goods are produced in America, keeping taxes low, maintaining common sense regulations and establishing trade agreements favorable to the United States. Working for school choice and unbiased teaching of our American History in the schools.
  • Ensuring nomination of Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court, and actively defending freedom of religion, protecting the unborn and defending the 2nd amendment. If the Affordable Care Act is deemed unconstitutional, getting a better healthcare plan passed, including protecting people with pre-existing conditions.
  • Maintaining a strong military (peace through strength), securing our borders against drugs, human trafficking and illegal immigration and supporting our first responders (health and safety) and the police and also ensuring meaningful police reform (this was attempted following George Floyd’s killing via the “Justice Act” introduced by Senator Tim Scott but kept from advancing (60 vote requirement) for consideration by Democrat Senators).
  • Supporting Israel, while fostering Peace in the middle East and around the world and keeping the United States out of Foreign conflicts.

The above items are not just rhetoric or artificial, good sounding Republican “talking points”. They are specifics, able to be readily discerned and listed based on (1) the fully transparent statements of intent by Republican leadership, by the President and by the presenters at the Republican National Convention and (2) by observation of the actual record of efforts, actions and accomplishments toward these outcomes which have been on-going for the last 4 years and have been promised to be pursued/continued in the next term).  

Rank and file Republicans / Conservatives / and attentive Independents appear to be fully aware of and in complete accord with these off stated, clearly transparent plans, policies and intended outcomes. As far as can be discerned there are no Republican Party hidden agendas being kept from the Republican base of support or from the American people. 

A vote for Donald Trump and Republican Congressmen and Senators is basically a vote for:  Preserving America!!  

(see the companion post) – What Democrats offer in the 2020 election.

The 2020 Presidential Election – America’s Future Is On the Ballot

Evidentiary Analysis of the Projected Consequences Depending on Which Party Wins the Presidency and the Congress

A great deal of the focus on the November 3, 2020 presidential election is on two things (1) the depiction of the character, demeanor, and physical and mental capability of the two candidates, President Donald Trump and Joe Biden and (2) blame for the Coronavirus, a menace which whose spread is apparently no respecter of political persuasion, predictions by scientists or health experts, masking or not masking, lockdown mandates or no lockdown mandates, and hot weather or cold weather. Only one thing seems very clear, the threat to the elderly, especially those with underlying comorbidities (e.g. hypertension, asthma, type 2-diabetes, obesity) is much greater and thus the elderly need to be protected from exposure until a vaccine is produced.

But these two issues, as relevant, emotional and attention capturing as they are, THEY ARE NOT what this election is really about and what the consequences of it will be.

What the election is really about is preserving or ostensibly fundamentally transforming America!!

See the Biden / Sanders “Unity Task Forces” document.  What our votes are really about is what are the policies, plans and intended outcomes to be implemented or carried forward depending on which Party prevails.

Republican Policies, Plans, Intended Outcomes

The policies, plans and desired outcomes that are expected to be associated with a victory in the 2020 election by the Republican Party (as asserted by the Republican Party and President Donald Trump, and as understood by the Republican rank and file voters), are primarily about:

  1. Preserving America, our Country, as we know it and have known it for almost 250 years.  Protecting our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court and our System of Checks and Balances, our Democratic Institutions, and the Electoral System.
  2. Eradicating the Covid19 scourge through development of effective therapeutics and an effective vaccine while rebuilding the economy and reestablishing record setting employment and wage growth for all Americans, bringing back jobs to America and ensuring critical health and safety goods are produced in America, keeping taxes low, maintaining common sense regulations and establishing trade agreements favorable to the United States. Working for school choice and unbiased teaching of our American History in the schools.
  3. Ensuring nomination of Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court, and actively defending freedom of religion, protecting the unborn and defending the 2nd amendment. If the Affordable Care Act is deemed unconstitutional, getting a better healthcare plan passed, including protecting people with pre-existing conditions.
  4. Maintaining a strong military (peace through strength), securing our borders against drugs, human trafficking and illegal immigration and supporting our first responders (health and safety) and the police and also ensuring meaningful police reform (this was attempted following George Floyd’s killing via the “Justice Act” introduced by Senator Tim Scott but kept from advancing (60 vote requirement) for consideration by Democrat Senators).
  5. Supporting Israel, while fostering Peace in the middle East and around the world and keeping the United States out of Foreign conflicts.

The above items are not just rhetoric or artificial, good sounding Republican “talking points”. They are specifics, able to be readily discerned and listed based on (1) the fully transparent statements of intent by Republican leadership, by the President and by the presenters at the Republican National Convention and (2) by observation of the actual record of efforts, actions and accomplishments toward these outcomes which have been on-going for the last 4 years and have been promised to be pursued/continued in the next term).  

Rank and file Republicans appear to be fully aware of and in complete accord with these off stated, clearly transparent plans, policies and intended outcomes. As far as can be discerned there are no Republican Party hidden agendas being  kept from the Republican base of support or from the American people.

 Democrat Policies, Plans, Intended Outcomes

The policies, plans and desired outcomes that would result from a victory in the 2020 election by the Democrat Party are more difficult to discern and specify as (1) the messaging comes from several different sources, (2) the messages of intent delivered depend on the audience, and (3) identifying who among the influencing forces and contributing entities will dictate the policies and plans.   Thus, to assess what might be the outcome of a Democratic victory requires identification of the various forces influencing / controlling the Democratic Party and then an assessment of the degree to which and how each of the forces are liable to affect the countries near and long-term future if Joe Biden is elected president and Democrats gain one or both houses of Congress.

The Democrat Party is now funded, led, supported and directed by an incongruous, alliance of powerful, disparate forces that have coalesced to take control of the Federal Government beginning in 2021. The stated plans and objectives to be implemented, if that control is achieved, could dismantle our economy and our economic system, diminish our individual freedoms and result in much greater Federal Government control of our lives, and our children’s lives in perpetuity.  It is evident, by their words, actions, and or funding that these various entities are in league with and support/fund/protect the Democratic Party.

 It is fairly evident that the current Democratic Party leadership’s is in alliance with various entities (e.g. media, big tech, billionaire donors), and that they are working on behalf of Democrat Party to gain and keep control of the Federal Government. These in descript arrangements are generally veiled, ignored, denied or rejected as Republican propaganda and are, to a large degree, kept from being emphasized to the rank and file Democrat voter (but are well known and promoted by the progressive / left wing faction of the Democrat Party which dominated the Democrat Presidential primary voting).  

The disparate forces, each for their own reasons, that are now and have been working to put the Democrat Party into power (i.e. gain control of Congress and the Presidency) are enumerated below along with what their impact might be on the future of America.

  1. The Giant Social Media / Internet Companies —Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google.  These four companies comprise 4 out of the 5 largest companies in the United States.  They are now controlling, to a large extent, what information people see and hear on social media platforms, thereby directly and subliminally influencing behaviors including how people will vote. It is well documented that these companies are subverting free speech – suppressing information and blocking commentary by conservative individuals and conservative sites that are favorable to Republicans and unfavorable to Democrats.  (Most recently Facebook and Twitter taking down the news story on the New York Post’s discovery of Hunter Biden’s laptop with information connecting Joe Biden to Hunter’s Burisma contacts and the President’s press secretary’s account for passing it on. This action caught national attention. However, behind the scenes thousands of conservative voices and many sites on the internet are being silenced.) 

Why all these companies support the Democrat Party is speculative but one reason may have to do with the Republican Party’s efforts/pledge to take away the special immunity granted to the Social Media Giants by Congress – Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – that has resulted in / allows them to censor / block what they wish without being sued.

The future outcome, if the Democratic Party wins, and these companies are not reined in from censoring and blocking, is that these companies will continue shutting down conservative views and thus greatly influence/control future elections (as was documented that they did in 2016) and thus keep the Democrat Party in power in the future as they get better and better at it.  

  • Academia and the Teaching of American History (Primarily universities but their Anti-American and progressive reach now extends through high school, middle school, elementary school and even into kindergarten.) The Democrat Party plan for free college will result in exposing more and more young voters to the activist / progressive mentality on University Campuses. Liberal University Administrators outnumber conservative Administrators by a ratio of 12 to 1, which is twice as high an imbalance as the next most liberal profession (legal).  The list of endorsements by Academia on Wikipedia shows 127 endorsements for Biden and 0 for Trump.
  • Anarchist / revolution indoctrinated youth (mostlycollege age students and recent university graduates over the last 15 years or so) who have been indoctrinated in anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, socialist ideology (and ripe for joining rioting and protesting, as has been seen in the summer of 2020). The influence this group of people may have on the Democrat Party in the future is unknown, but if the 2020 protests are any indication if “promised” progressive policies are not enacted this group may be a force for the Democrat Party to recon with and eventually succumb to.
  • Left Leaning Mainstream Media and Cable Networks and Newspapers -Owned, and directed by just a few media billionaires who control what news and information is disseminated from their newspapers and television outlets and how the information that is disseminated is biased/skewed to (1) promote the Democrat Party, (2) Condemn conservative thought and (3) vilify President Trump and help remove him from office. (Evidence for this approach has been fully and unapologetically on display for the last 4 years). Although “Love Trumps Hate” was a 2016 Election slogan used by Democrats, when Trump won hate for Trump became widespread and visceral and was shamefully cultivated, and enhanced by the media who have non-stop denigrated the President.

Journalistic honesty, independence, and diligence in investigation to determine the truth has been clearly absent.  Linkage in message between the Democrat Party and their sycophant media has been clearly on display.  With a large majority (70% – pew research) of listeners accepting what is presented as factual gives great power to the media / and in turn concomitant allegiance to voting for the Democratic Party is ingrained. This current lock step setup between the media and the Democrat Party promises, if the Democrat Party wins in 2020, to keep the Democrats, with control of the media, in control of the country politically for a long time to come.

  • Billionaires and Wall Street, are now major contributors to the Democrat Party and to Democrat candidates (e.g. George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Dustin Moskovitz). According to Forbes, 36 billionaires gave six-figure plus amounts to Joe Biden (1.24 million to $100,000) and, as of June 30, 109 billionaires had contributed to Joe Biden. Wall Street donations for Joe Biden outpace those to Trump by 5 to 1. The accepted “conventional wisdom” that the Republicans are for the rich and the rich are for Republicans is no longer true.  Despite Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren railing against billionaires and Wall Street, the billionaires, millionaires and Wall Street tycoons are funding the Democrats in droves and Senator Sanders doesn’t seem to object since it might put him in the driver’s seat for instituting his brand of socialism via a top spot in a Biden presidency. 
  • Late night television hosts and Hollywood celebrities – In addition to the liberal news media, these celebrities flagrantly promote the Democrat Party and mock and condemn President Trump and conservatives.
  • Violent, militant Antifa, Black Lives Matter and other left-wing militant organizations. These organizations have terrorized conservative students and speakers on college campuses and have self-identified as Communist, Marxist, Anti-American organizations bent on overthrowing America and/ or American institutions (e.g. one of Black Lives Matter core values is that they are: “committed to disrupting the Western prescribed nuclear family structure”. While Antifa is not specifically endorsed by the Democrat Party, neither have they been condemned by the Party for their violent attacks on conservative individuals and groups nor were they called -out for their well-documented looting, and rioting and attacks on police in the 2020 riots. (Until after the DNC convention when it no longer looked politically expedient to remain mum.)  The logical, apparent influence / role of these groups if the Democrat Party gains power would be to lobby and or protest (perhaps violently) for more progressive policies. Or to unleash their bullying, protesting tactics on any resistance to such policies by conservatives or Christian based groups.  These groups are not an idle threat.
  • Democrat Party official, “mainstream” leadership (the DNC, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi) and Democrat Congressional representatives. The “mainstream” Democrat Party “default platform” for the last four years was essentially “Hate Trump -Russian Collusion- Impeach Trump and Block all Republican Initiatives they reasonably could that would give Trump any credit”. That was the essence of the Democrat plan and primarily what they stood for. They have worked continuously to disrupt and delegitimize the Trump presidency. However, the Democrat Party, wisely in the months prior to the 2018 mid-term congressional elections put the “impeach trump activity” into dormancy (on hold) and a Democrat platform emphasizing fostering healthcare improvements was adopted in its stead.   This messaging to its faithful Democrat rank and file base was successful and the Democrat Party regained control of the House of Representatives and attendant committee leadership.  Under pressure from the far left “thought leaders” of the Party the “Impeach Trump” platform immediately resurfaced and the promised Healthcare Focus on which Democrat candidates were elected was not heard from again.  

Now Presidential candidate Joe Biden and his far to the left running mate Kamala Harris (ranked most liberal Senator by GovTrack) join Pelosi and Schumer as the Democrat Party official leadership and ostensibly would formulate and guide the plans, policies, and outcomes to be pursued if the Democrat Party prevails in the 2020 election. Although Joe Biden is being shrewdly portrayed as a moderate / non radical Presidential candidate (representative of the Democrat Party of old) in actuality the plans and polices to be pursued if Joe Biden is elected are not moderate at all.   These plans were formulated, apparently with Joe Biden’s blessing, by Bernie Sanders and the DNC into the 110 page “Unity Task Forces” Democrat Platform and this plan is what Joe Biden has signed onto.

Despite Biden’s claim that “I am the Democrat Party” it is readily evident that he is not. Joe Biden limped out of the first 3 Democrat Primaries with 14%, 8% and 19% of the vote, garnering him 2 distant 4th place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire and a poor second in Nevada to Bernie Sanders 40%. The DNC, Congressman James Clyburn and the Democrat Party Leadership , recognizing the countries inherent animas toward a “socialist” candidate and the difficulty such a candidate would have in defeating President Trump coalesced around the more acceptable but less dynamic and less inspiring, “converted moderate”, Joe Biden.  Biden, was then propped up for the nomination but the radical polices were maintained and in fact were ostensibly authored or greatly influenced by Bernie Sanders. The DNC’s “gambit” on Joe Biden as the presidential nominee took place at the end of February before the Coronavirus menace began to dominate and the Democratic Party leaped on it as a potential political advantage. The Democrat leadership at the time was involved with impeaching the President at the time the Coronavirus arose and they discounted the President’s worries/actions on Coronavirus (Speaker Pelosi was in San Francisco’s China Town encouraging patronage on Feb 24th and New York City Mayor DeBlasio was encouraging New Yorkers to “get out and live their lives” on March 2nd).  President Trump issued the China travel ban on Jan. 31st (which Joe Biden criticized as xenophobic) and Trump initiated the “slow the spread” orders on March 16, when there were just 3,000 U.S. cases and 60 deaths. Now, despite the factual history Joe Biden blames Trump for being too slow and causing “all 200,000 US deaths”, thereby weaponizing, with the aid of the media, the Coronavirus tragedy for political advantage. The condemnation of Trump’s handling of the intractable Coronavirus (which has baffled scientists and carried out its malevolence with impunity) is a total red herring, a ploy, unfairly, inaccurately, and shamefully thrown in by the Democrat Party to distract from their extremely progressive plans and policies dictating the country’s future.  

None of the extreme, progressive leftist platform items seem to be covered or focused on or emphasized in the current TV ads for Joe Biden for president. Now that the primaries are over and the national election season is in full swing, not only has Joe Biden been “hidin” so has the true agenda of the Democrat Party, that was clearly evident in the Democrat Primary Debates. ‘Rather the messaging orchestrated by the Democratic Party and the Media to the American people, veils the extreme progressive plans for the country. This messaging tactic is similar to the tactic used by the Democrat Party in the 2018 mid-terms and is being used to disguise the true agenda of Democrat party after the 2020 election.  The Joe Biden for President ads do not tout or even discuss the any of the progressive, transforming, and potentially economically devastating platform agenda items in the “Unity Task Forces” Democrat Party Platform.  Rather, Joe Biden is shown making non-descript, non-specific promises of better education, better healthcare and maintaining social security along with an anti-Trump mantra inexplicably, and illogically criticizing and blaming Trump for the Coronavirus plague.  That is what is heard by the American public. Dismantling border protections, allowing sanctuary cites, ending use of fossil fuels and fracking, defunding police, taking away private health care plans covering 180 million Americans and going to “Public Healthcare Option run by the Federal Government (socialized medicine), eliminating bail requirements for criminals, elimination of charter schools, funding of abortions, getting rid of the Trump tax cuts and increased child credits and the other progressive/radical plans promoted by the Democrat Presidential Primary Candidates and included in the Democrat Party platform are not mentioned as the Democrat Party objectives in the Joe Biden for President ads.   

  • The far to the left “unofficial leaders” of the Democratic Party, are much more radical and outspoken, they include (1) the well- publicized, media promoted, avowed socialists (Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the squad), (2) most of the Democrat Presidential primary candidates, and a 100 member progressive caucus in the House of Representatives (includes Bernie Sanders from the Senate).  These individuals, before, during and after the primary debates identified what are generally regarded as the true plans, policies, and outcomes being proposed by the Democrat Party, including – Medicare for all, elimination of fossil fuels / fracking and the end of our recently achieved energy independence, dismantling of border protections and support for sanctuary cities, abortion up to the point of birth, free health care for illegal aliens, gun confiscation, free college tuition, repeal of tax cuts and re-imposition of the regulations removed by the Trump administration, etc. Most of these and other progressive plans are incorporated in the Biden Plan / “Unity Task Forces” and the outspoken proponents of these policies have already been announced as the leads for implementation in the Biden Cabinet – Sanders on Healthcare policy, Ocasio-Cortez – chair of a climate task force, Beto O’Rourke – in charge of Gun Control.

All of these organizations and entities are supporting the Democratic Party, forming a Hydra, a 9-headed, prodigious, colossus, that has worked toward putting and keeping the Democrat Party in power. After examination of the role and influence that each plays, the expected outcomes if the Democrat Party gains control of the Presidency and both house of Congress in the near term and long term seems clear.

Namely (1) adoption of the big government / socialistic plans and policies identified above under the analysis of the official and unofficial leadership of the Democrat Party which will fundamentally transform our society and (2) continued and further control/selective presentation of news and information by the media and further restriction of conservative speech on social media, college campuses and elsewhere thereby deceptively controlling the electorate and the elections.  

So now it is up to the Voters – Democrats – Republicans – Independents

It seems like in recent years the candidates for President and the Congressional Offices always claim that the current election is the most important election that our country has ever had. Well, this one really is, and if President Trump wins so will the next one be and the one after that, etc.  Why is that?

  • Well first it is so that: “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.  (Abraham Lincoln – Gettysburg address

Could our nation effectively “perish from the earth” if the Democrats gain, the Presidency, the Senate and keep the House of Representatives in the 2020 election?  The evidence that that may be the case is quite compelling, because:

  • The changing demographics in our country, the stranglehold on communication / messaging by Big Media and the censoring / speech control by Big Tech, the anti-American ideology that has been and is now being taught by Academia to our younger generation, the potential of universal amnesty and citizenship to millions of illegal aliens and the threatened change in makeup of the House and Senate (adding two more states that vote with the Democrats) and packing the Supreme Court with liberals could keep the “progressive Democrat Party regime” in control of the country for the foreseeable future.   

Traditionally Democrat Voters

However, before the plans and goals of the Democrat Party can be put into place in the country, the most important participants of the 2020 election– the voters – must put them into power.  Despite the radical shift that the Democrat party has undergone, the Democrat Party still want and need the votes of their long time, party faithful. People who have voted for Democrat candidates for years may or not be aware of the real plans, policies and intend outcomes of the Democrat Party should they gain control.   The rank and file Democrat voters, the party faithful, may not realize that (1) there have been major role reversals in the two major political parties, and (2) they may have been kept unaware of any positive accomplishments of the Trump Administration (energy independence, low unemployment, ISIS Caliphate removal, border control, higher wages and lowest unemployment for all demographics pre-Covid, mid -East peace agreements, etc. ). Further the non-stop “hate Trump” and “Trump condemnation” messaging of the last 4 years may have been sufficient to keep Democrat voters in the fold without the Democrat Party ever broadcasting the major progressive platform agenda items that could transform their America.

Republican Voters – Fiscal Conservatives – Evangelicals – Blue collar workers

The situation with voter projection for the traditional, conservative Republican voters including the vast majority of Christian Evangelicals is relatively straight forward.  In 2016 the raucous, politically inexperienced, neophyte Donald Trump was an unknown quantity to conservatives and only a “promise maker” to evangelicals on such things as Supreme Court nominations, pro-life actions, and religious freedom defense and likewise to workers on bringing back American factories and jobs. Four years later, with most promises diligently worked on and kept, the unknown quantity, Trump, is now a known quantity and those voters are aware of what has been done and are enthusiastically on board for re-election. Few if any of those offended by his character in the “never Trump” camp and those threatened individuals who still reside in the Deep State will be voting for Trump. The degree to which the facts of what was done by the Trump Administration pre-Covid for all demographics (especially Opportunity Zones, reduced unemployment, Historical Black Colleges) belie the constant racism charges but whether it will override the emotion and messaging associated with the rioting and increase minority vote for Trump is unknown. Likewise, the traditional Jewish votes for the Democrats may be swayed by his efforts on Israel. Certainly, the attendance and enthusiasm at the Trump rallies would indicate incredible grass root / common people support for Trump.  However, the visceral hate / bullying / violence against Trump supporters continues such that people are afraid (in my neighborhood) to even put up a yard sign for Trump. One 95-year old ladies yard sign was taken away twice and when her son requested a reprieve on Nextdoor – he was answered by a slew of hate Trump vitriol. “Love trumps Hate” was turned into “Lets Hate Trump” when he won the election.

Independents

      As has been the case for many elections those who vote as Independents will determine the outcome of the election.  Hopefully, the Independents have been diligent in sorting through the messaging and rhetoric and are able to discern the real issue what the true projected outcome for the United States of America will be depending on whether the Republican Party or the Democrat Party is put into power.  

May God Bless and Protect America’s Future in this election.

Thanks for reading – Larry Von Thun

The Electoral System, Important in 1787 and Still Essential

Part I – The Electoral System provided for in the United States Constitution

In 1787, when US Constitution was written there were just 13 states. State’s Rights versus a Strong Central Government was one of the major issues that had to be accounted for in all the deliberations related to balance of power between those competing concepts. In the formation of our government, states with smaller populations did not want to be “run over” or inordinately controlled by states with larger populations. Conversely, states with large populations representing greater numbers of people considered that they should have more say on governance and in the election process. From the standpoint of legislation (passing laws, authorizing spending, etc.), the allocation of influence in accordance with larger and smaller populations among the states was solved by the Framers of our Constitution via establishing a bicameral legislature, i.e. two houses comprising the Congress.  The House of Representatives, in which the number of representatives for a state was based on population and the Senate in which each state had an equal number of representatives (2). That arrangement was agreed-upon and has worked out very well. It avoided the potential, at that time, of two or three of the most populous states (with larger number of representatives) getting together and controlling the outcome on an issue for the entire country.

With respect to the election of the President of the United States, the Framers likewise devised a unique way, the Electoral System, to help ensure that the will of the entire country and not just a highly populated state or region would control the outcome of the National Election for the President. The Framers could have used a “One State – One Vote” option or they could have opted for a total popular vote option “One Person-One Vote”. The first option would have respected the distinctiveness and importance of each state but would have not accounted for states with much larger populations.  The second option would have provided the more populous states with the potential to unduly control the outcome of the Presidential election and essentially neglect the input from smaller states.  The Framers solution was a third option, the Electoral System.  Under the Electoral System, States were allotted “electors” to vote for their choice of President in accordance with their population. More populous states were given more electoral votes to cast for President than were the less populated states. Each state received the same number of electors as the number of Congressional Representatives they had. One for each member they had in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Thereby the Framers ensured that the number of votes each State had in the Presidential election was in proportion to the State’s population*.   The use of an Electoral System allows the greater population of the larger states to be fairly and appropriately accounted for in the election.  The “saving grace” for the smaller populous states under the electoral system was that a huge “margin of victory” in the popular vote in a given state or states (specifically the very large populous states), for what ever reason, did not cancel out the vote from smaller populous states and thus dictate the overall outcome.  Here are two examples that show how the Electoral System  fairly accounts  for the larger population states but protects the input from the states with smaller populations through exclusion of the “margin of victory” in the popular vote in a state. 

Example 1 – Looking at the state populations in 1790 and the associated electoral votes assigned and applied in the 1792 election, it can be seen that the population of Massachusetts (1790 census) was 378,000, with 16 electoral votes which was comparable to the total 16 electoral votes from the combined populations of Vermont- 85,000,  New Hampshire -142,000, Delaware 59,000 and Rhode Island 69,000.  If, for example, the popular vote for a particular candidate that year was overwhelming in Massachusetts (say 90% for one Candidate), but was just over 50% in the other 4 states cited for the same candidate. That Candidate would receive 16 electoral votes from Massachusetts and 16 electoral votes from the other 4 states.  No “extra credit” would be given toward the candidate’s overwhelming victory in Massachusetts.                                                            * A minimum of 3 electoral votes was assigned to States with small populations (one Representative plus two Senators).

Example 2 – At present, in the year 2020, California will receive 55 electoral votes while Delaware will receive 3.   In fact because of its large population, California receives as many electoral votes as the combined total of Vermont , Wyoming, West Virginia, Utah, South Dakota, Rhode Island, North Dakota, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, Delaware, Alaska and Hawaii combined (as many electoral votes as 15 other states ).  Thus, it can be seen that the Electoral System fairly accounts for the voting power of the greater population of California.

However, as indicated above and described below there was (and is) a subtle but important difference associated with the “the margin” of a popular vote victory in any given state and the provision for proportionally crediting states with larger populations.  The provision, put in place by the Framers of the Constitution, was to use electors in proportion with a state’s population, rather than summing  popular vote totals from each state.  Note that typically (48 out of 50 states**), use a winner take all system to decide how their electors will cast their ballots for President.

So, to illustrate how the “margin of popular vote victory” in a state is kept from unduly controlling the overall election” in the electoral system consider the following example.  Assume (relatively reasonably based on the 2010 census) that the population of California and the population of the sum of the 15 States cited above both equal 40 million and that everyone in all of the 16 states vote, for either Candidate A, a conservative from Texas, or Candidate B, a liberal (favorite son) from California.  Now let’s assume that Candidate A wins the popular vote in each of the 15 states cited above, fairly decisively, by an average margin of 55% to 45%, thus receiving 22,000,000 votes while Candidate B receives 18,000,000 votes.  However, in California Candidate B wins overwhelmingly taking 75% of the popular vote, 30,000,000 votes to 10,000,000 votes.  Under the Constitutions’s Electoral System Candidate B wins California, and gets 55 electoral votes and Candidate A wins 15 states and also gets 55 electoral votes.

However, under a popular vote system, there would be 48,000,000 votes for Candidate B and 32,000,000 votes for Candidate A.  The preference of the 15 states for Candidate A would have been completely overwhelmed by the much larger popular vote winning differential in California of 20,000,000 for Candidate B vs the total winning differential of 4,000,000 for Candidate A in the other  15 states. The net outcome toward the Presidential Election of these 16  states (without the electoral system) would be a popular vote lead of 16,000,000 votes for Candidate B – easily nullifying the democratically chosen preference of 15 States for Candidate A.   This is what the electoral system was established to avoid – potential dominance from the popular “margin of victory” in very high population states!

Clearly such a situation as the Presidential Candidate being from a very large population state, such as used in the example could swell the margin of victory in an individual state. That well could have been one of the factors that the Framers considered.  For example the population of Virginia in 1790 was nearly ten times that of Delaware and the margin of popular vote victory of a “favorite son” in Virginia could well have overwhelmed the popular votes cast in Delaware (and several other smaller population states).

The above example is not far fetched.  In our current political and demographic  landscape , without the electoral system the majority choice of 15 states could have (and would have in recent elections) been overwhelmed by the vote differential of the population in a single state based on that populations characteristics, vagaries and preferences.  The Framers likely recognized the significant disparities that could occur between the states, the potential for large variations in the popular vote differentials and the potential for large swings in the population.  For example, between the 1790 census and the 1860 census the population of New York state increased 10-fold up to 4,000,000 while Delaware’s population only increased from 69,000 to 100,000.  The Framers wanted each States choice (democratically chosen in that state) to be given its due.

The Electoral System in our Constitution accommodates the importance and individuality of the Separate States while equitably providing for the larger states to have their just share of votes for the President in accordance with their population. The Electoral Process prevented the differential in popular vote in a given state from dismissing the preferences of other states and having undue influence on the outcome of the Presidential election. The Framers instituted the Electoral System for a good reason.   The one person-one vote principal is often the right approach but in order to value each states autonomy and in order to give each state a viable say in the Presidential Election the Electoral System was needed.  The electoral system for our country, made up of individual states, was insightful, fair, brilliant and necessary.  Fortuitously the electoral system is still functioning remarkably well given the radical  change in the country’s demography  from rural to urban.                                                                                                  ** Maine and Nebraska allow for splitting their electoral votes if congressional districts are won by different candidates.

Part II – The Electoral System and the Mega City/County Effect

The inclusion of the electoral system in our constitution was fortuitous, as we will see, because now and for the foreseeable future, the electoral system is absolutely essential in maintaining a semblance of balance between the voters representing the width and breadth of the country versus mega city voters.  Without the electoral system, the popular vote dominance in major metropolitan cities and counties would control Presidential Elections henceforth.

Without a complete understanding of the underlying functioning and intent of the electoral system, people tend to consider that the electoral system is taking away their vote, especially if they voted differently than the majority of the people in their State. They hearken back to the one person – one vote dictum, without recognition that their one vote, was indeed already appropriately cast for the candidate of their choice in the “democratic” election in their State. In any event there is a natural, underlying sentiment for a National Popular vote that is easily tapped into.  However,  beyond that inherent sentiment, there is now realization by the leadership of the political parties of how important and what a critical role the Electoral System now plays in the Presidential elections.  This realization is what is driving the recent calls by Democratic Presidential candidates for the electoral system to be abolished and by the Republicans to maintain it. Further this realization has  prompted legislative actions by States currently under Democrat control to pass laws hitching their State electors to the national popular vote in the future regardless of the outcome of the vote in their State.   Clearly the political winds and demographic changes have revealed the trend that shows that the Democrat party would now profoundly benefit, for the foreseeable future, in the removal of the electoral system and the adoption of a national popular vote. The evidence for this assertion is illustrated subsequently.

One Person – One Vote – Why there are exceptions to this “rule”

Despite our inherent tendency to endorse the fairness  in the “one person-one vote” standard, there are extenuating circumstances and/or particular situations where an alternative to that customary approach is necessary to achieve an equitable, and just representation. This was, and is the case for the disparate, independent and vastly different areal populations of these Untied States in voting for the Chief Executive. It is also the case for all legislative action in each state and for the country as a whole.  The United States is a Republic, which  means that The United States operates in terms of a representative form of government.   Likewise, States, Counties and Cities elect representatives to make the decisions on all manner of issues.  A popular vote is not used to decide on each decision and each law. Only occasionally is there a referendum where an issue is put to a direct popular vote.   The Framers recognized that an exception to the one person -one vote was necessary to achieve and equitable means of selection of the President of our country in order to recognize the differences and the autonomy of each of the participating States in the voting and prevent inadvertent control or nomination of the election process.

Here is a simple example to illustrate where an adjustment of the one person-one vote dictum makes sense:    Consider a community comprised of 50 homes and associated households.  These 50 households, through taxes on their property and through home owner association fees fund the community’s amenities.  Now suppose that the 50 households are quite diverse in their family situations, as follows:  There are 10 retired couples with homes, 5 homes owned by widows, 20 households with young children (5 of which are single parent) , 10 with an average of 2 adult children (over 18) still living with them and 5 homes occupied with multi-generational families with 6 adults in the home (parents, grandparents and 2 older siblings – 6 in all). In all, in this community scenario there are 130 persons, over 18,  who would be eligible to vote under the one person-one vote rule. However, under a one vote per household rule (typical for community settings) there would be 50 votes. To elucidate the potential voting disparity a bit further, lets imagine a proposal was made to close the community pool in order to reduce homeowner fees (the pool was part of the originally advertised amenities for the homes). The pool is looked on favorably by the young families, and also by the retired couples and the widows, (not only for their use but also it results in an increase in visits from their grandchildren).  The multi-generational families and the families with adult children at home basically do not use the pool and are in favor of closing it.  So, the popular vote under “one person-one vote” would come out, 60 for and 70 against keeping the pool operational.  However, under one vote per household the result would be 35 for and 15 against. Certainly, the one vote per household is the fairest option in this scenario.  Although, this example is not an exact comparison of the Electoral System vs the National Popular vote, the inclusion of the factors related to influence of population and diversity of circumstances help provide an understanding of why there was the need for the Electoral System in the United States Presidential Elections.

Another example of the non-use of the one person-one vote, ironically, is that used in the both the Republican and Democrat Party Primaries to select the Presidential Candidate.  The Democrat Party, for example, uses a type of electoral system (delegate selection) in their primaries. Within each state, just as in the national elections, each person gets to vote for a specific candidate.  The total number of delegates (electors) a state receives are apportioned to each state in accordance with the total population of the State just as does the U.S. Constitutional Electoral System. The sum of the popular vote received by each candidate in the primaries is not tracked on the basis of the popular vote in each state directly.  The ultimate process is further adjusted (away from a direct popular vote)  via a redistribution (addition) of delegates to primary candidates who achieve more than 15% of the popular vote to account for the votes cast for candidates that did not reach 15% of the total popular vote (essentially disregarding those “popular” votes).  Finally, the Democrat Party’s primary process goes one step further in superseding a direct popular vote by invoking “super delegates” with extra voting power.

The current importance and role of the electoral system is illustrated not only by the fact that it has come into play in 2 of the last 5 Presidential elections but also in the much greater differentials in electoral votes to popular vote margin in the 2016 election than in any of the other 4 instances in the countries history when the electoral vote result and the popular vote result were different. This reflects the increase in the country’s major population centers along with the increased domination of the political persuasion of the electorate in those major metropolitan areas.

The U. S. Census shows that in 1800, 6% of the population was considered urban and 94% rural. By 1900, 40 % of the population was urban and 60% rural and by 1950 those percentages were reversed.  Fast forward to 1990 and we find that 75% were considered urban and only 25% rural.  In 2010, the census classed 19.3% as rural and 80.7% urban.  While these numbers are very telling in terms of general population shift, the definition of “urban” has changed and what is really important from the standpoint of examining the current value and importance of the electoral system is: (1) The huge populations of major metropolitan areas (cities and counties) and (2) The evolution of the populations of these very large cities and counties toward a much more uniform party preference. Thus, given these two factors, if the electoral system were to be eliminated, it would result, as shown below, in the virtual exclusion of the influence of a major portion of the country in the Presidential elections under the current political framework.

Part III – Major City/County Populations and their Current Dominance in the National Popular Vote

In the 2016 Presidential Election, Donald Trump won the vote in 30 States and garnered 306 electoral votes, Hillary Clinton won 20 States and received 232 electoral votes.  There are, depending on how they are named and counted, 3,142 counties in the United States.  Donald Trump won 2,655 of those counties and Hillary Clinton won 487.  Figure 1 illustrates the  dominance of Trump’s victory in terms of the area of country as a whole.

election-2016-county-map

Figure 1 – 2016 Election – Counties in Red won by Donald Trump – Counties in Blue won by Hillary Clinton

Despite the “country wide” dominance of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, roughly 66 million to 63 million.  The reason — Hillary Clinton won the 100 most populated counties in the country, (the major metropolitan areas) by 12.6 million votes.

Thus, outside of the major metropolitan areas, Donald Trump won the popular vote by almost 10 million votes.  (source The Atlantic, Nov 16, 2016, How the Election Revealed the Divide Between City and Country, Ronald Brownstein)

The fundamental reason that Hillary Clinton lost the electoral vote but won the popular vote was because, just as illustrated in the examples above, “the Margin of Victory” in the highest populated areas was quite large.  And just as illustrated in the examples, the differential margin of victory that occurred in the major cities, if not for the electoral system would have easily overwhelmed the democratically determined preference of the clear majority of the States in the country.  There are three critical sub-points evident in these results:

  1. Unlike, the diversity in opinion and relatively close percentage margin between Democrat and Republican Presidential Candidates that occurs in general throughout the country, the vote in major city/county areas is predominately for the Democrat Candidate. (e.g. the Democrat vote percentage in 2016 was, 93% in the District of Columbia, approaching 90% in the counties of Bronx, Manhattan, and Prince George (Maryland), 85% in San Francisco, and near or above 80% in Philadelphia, Atlanta and Los Angeles).  These large margins of victory, combined with the huge populations of these counties, amass (at present and for the foreseeable future) an insurmountable Democrat Party advantage in the national popular vote.  This was evident in the 2012 and 2016 elections and the population and political trends indicate this will be the case for the foreseeable future.
  2. As noted above Hillary Clinton gained a 12.6 million popular vote advantage from the most populous 100 counties. Her ultimate 3 million popular vote advantage, can readily be seen by simple math and examination of the voting results, be accounted for by the margin of victory in only a few of the most populous cities/counties in America. (Los Angeles county alone provided 1.25 million of the 3 million differential). So, without the Electoral System, in spite of the vigorous policy debates among the Candidates that may pervade the entire country, the Presidential Election popular vote would now appear to be controlled/decided by the distinct margin of victory in the very high populous counties and cites.
  3. The population of the 25 most populous cities/counties was 64,500,000 as of 2010 and accounted for 21% of the total US population. When one or more of the major metropolises exist in a state, the likelihood of the State’s electoral vote going to a Democrat vs a Republican is quite high. Thus with few exceptions, the very high population in the major cities typically dictate the electoral votes in the states in which they exist.

Part IV – Past, Present and Future Outlook of the Rural vs City Divide

My observation and interest in this Rural vs City Divide contrast, actually arose as I was observing the results of the Republican Primary voting in Ohio in 2008.  Senator Rick Santorum ran on very conservative social and political values and positions.  His primary opponent in the Ohio Primary was Governor Mitt Romney who, although an avowed Republican, was regarded as somewhat less conservative.

230px-Ohio_Republican_Presidential_Primary_Election_Results_by_County,_2012.svg

Figure 2 – Results by County from the 2012 Republican Primary Election                      Orange (lighter)– Mitt Romney          Green (darker) — Rick Santorum

As the results came in, more quickly from the rural counties, it appeared that Senator Santorum was going to easily win.  However, there are three large metropolitan areas in Ohio: (1) Cleveland – Akron, (2) Columbus and (3) Cincinnati. The Republicans in and around these cities, being more liberal than their rural cousins, all went for Mitt Romney, equaling Santorum’s total. The fact that the “city” influence could so clearly affect the outcome in a Republican primary was astonishing. It was then that I began looking at how increasingly influential highly populous major cities were in state and national elections. The trend is clear, Democrats are winning fewer and fewer rural counties while at the same time more consistently winning the popular vote. In 1992 and 1996 there was nearly an even Democrat/Republican spilt among US counties, but in 2000 Presidential Candidate Al Gore won the popular vote (narrowly) and did that by winning less than 700 of the 3142 counties.  In 2012 President Obama won the 100 largest counties by 12 million votes but lost the remaining 3,042 counties popular vote by nearly 7 million votes. Then in 2016, as reported above, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes by winning only 487 US Counties.

The Democrat Party’s strength is consolidated in an increasingly monolithic electorate in major US population centers.  There are a number of reasons that a greater and greater portion of the electorate in major cities votes for the Democrat Party Candidate for President and other national offices, but suffice to say: that is the case  In is not an expectation that the  Republican Party will make any significant inroads on affecting that trend.  Thus, as major metropolises continue to grow and the electorate divide in those cities continues to expand, the popular vote will almost certainly continue to be won by the Democrats. However, at present, the electoral system, provided for in the US Constitution, is able to preserve our country as the United States of America and prevent it from becoming “The United Cities of America”.

Colorado has joined 11 other states in passing a law in their states that usurps the intent of the US Constitution and the electoral system as previously described.   These States would cast their electoral votes for the Candidate who wins the national popular vote regardless of the preference of the voters in their states.  (The law in Colorado would only go into effect if enough states pass similar laws such that a total of all states with the popular vote law reaches 270 electoral votes, the number necessary to win the presidency.)   This “end around” approach of passing state laws to usurp the intent of the constitution is being employed because  a Constitutional Amendment to change to a presidential election using the Popular Vote would require ratification by 3/4 of the states which is not a realistic possibility as the smaller states would not support it. This is because a National Popular Vote system would in essence eliminate their influence on future elections.     The Colorado legislature and those of the other states  passing this law *** are, (1) In effect, relinquishing the sovereignty of their state henceforth and saying , we do not care what the people in our state want, we will go along with the population as a whole. and saying (2) We do not care that,  in effect we are eliminating the influence smaller, rural states  may have on future National Presidential Elections, and thus defying the intent of the U. S. Constitution.

Why would they do that?  Simple!  Because if enough states sign on to this popular vote dictate, it will ensure a Democrat is in the White House for the foreseeable future, for the reasons documented in the above discussions.  Namely, the “Margin of Victory” in the Democrat strongholds in the major metropolises will overwhelm the popular vote totals in the rest of the country.  To wit, the 12 million plus popular vote advantage reaped in the 100 most populous counties in the United States gave Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2012 the popular vote win by 3 million and 6 million votes respectively. This occurred despite these two Candidates soundly losing the popular vote in the rest of the United States (the other 3000 counties) by 9 million and 6 million votes respectively. The demography and political leaning of the 100 most populous counties is not likely to change, that’s why the states with Democrat control in their states are pushing for the popular vote and demeaning the Electoral System.  It is no surprise that all the states signed on thus far in favor of a popular vote option voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election.

However, the above rationale is not presented to the populous pushing for a National Popular vote. The concept is promoted under the very appealing “One Person – One Vote” and “Every Vote Should Count” banners. Certainly, these are good concepts, and certainly the Framers were aware of their value.  But the truth is that it is all about gaining political power and undoing what has proven to be an equitable and fair system that was put in place to recognize the individuality and autonomy of the States, large and small.  And now we see that through its inherent intent of recognizing the individuality and independence of each state, the Electoral  System has also provided for protecting the influence of the voters in both city and country. Thank goodness for the wisdom of the Framers and for the Electoral System placed in the U. S. Constitution

*** The bill in Colorado will only take effect if the law is passed by states representing at least 270 electoral college votes, which is the amount needed to win the presidency. With the addition of Colorado, that number now sits at 181. Other jurisdictions that have enacted the legislation include Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California and the District of Columbia. New Mexico.