National Popular Vote Will Not Solve Election Issues

National Popular Vote Will Not Solve Election Issues

National Popular Vote Will Not Solve Election Issues

The National Popular Vote was on the Colorado Ballot after not doing well in the legislature. On Tuesday night, Proposition 113 passed overwhelmingly, without our family’s votes I might add.

“Colorado voters have passed Proposition 113 — confirming lawmakers’ 2019 decision to assign the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.

The ballot measure had 52.2% support Wednesday evening with 88% of the vote counted statewide.

Even as The Associated Press was declaring that Prop 113 had passed, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden held an approximately 3 million-vote lead over President Donald Trump in the popular vote nationwide while still trying to nail down the 270 votes needed in the Electoral College. It’s too soon to call the 2020 presidential election, but Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in the Electoral College in 2016 despite finishing with a similar lead in the popular vote.”

Since then, I’ve listened and watched as many people I know of the liberal persuasion have pointed to all the current vote discrepancy shenanigans in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, and proclaimed ‘with the popular vote this wouldn’t be happening!’ 

Ummm, yes, yes it will. But before I get into WHY the National Popular Vote WON’T solve the election problems of today or in the future, let’s do a little recap. 

The national popular vote movement has been brewing for quite sometime. However, it really took off after a certain November night in 2016 when to all Democrat/liberal horror, Hillary Clinton LOST to that dastardly Donald Trump guy. 


No it was not. Hillary Clinton took California and got all 55 of those electoral votes. She took Colorado (dammit) and took all 9 of those electoral votes. Two states with a total approximate population of 45.09 million that had a total of 8,887,658 votes for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. 


Yes, Hillary got the popular vote. But again, the sheer number of states that had Donald Trump as the popular vote winner within their states outnumbered the states that Hillary took. Many of those states had lower populations than Colorado and California combined. 

Our electoral college was put in place for a reason. To put in check the most populated states holding sway over the lower populated states in choosing who will be President. 

Today, as I noted above, there are significant issues with vote counts in multiple states. 

“Then, something strange happened in the dead of the night. In both Michigan and Wisconsin, vote dumps early Wednesday morning showed 100 percent of the votes going for Biden and zero percent—that’s zero, so not even one vote—for Trump.”

In Michigan, Biden somehow got 138,339 votes and Trump got none, zero, in an overnight vote-dump.”

Nothing odd about that. Nope, not at all.

There are 118 year old people voting in Detroit, folks who’ve been dead for years voting in Arizona and elsewhere, and people having their ballots rejected due to Sharpies or for no reason at all. Meanwhile, Powerline tabulates the votes and discovers that President Trump had well over 200K votes THIS year compared to 2016, yet we are supposed to believe he lost to Biden?

So, for all those who are pushing for a National Popular vote as a fix for all of these problems, let’s again use Colorado as an example. 

Colorado goes full red (Hey! One can dream right?) and the Republican candidate wins the state popular vote. However, the national vote goes to the Democrat candidate, so Colorado’s vote is null and void. That doesn’t seem fair or right does it? Shoe on the other foot doesn’t look quite as good now.

How about this scenario? Colorado goes RED, but the Democrat candidate was supposed to win. Should the state do as PA and Nevada did this week and halt vote counts so they can “assess?” 

But moving to the popular vote will solve the shortcomings? What shortcomings?

“The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from “winner-take-all” laws that have been enacted by state legislatures in 48 states. These laws award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state.”

Oh wait, so the electoral votes (except for 2016’s ‘faithless electors idiocy”) go for the winners of the popular vote in each state, and that’s a problem? Wow. You mean to tell me that the Electoral College is in place to protect the chosen winner of each state? You don’t say.

You see, with a National Popular vote, It doesn’t matter WHO the voters will choose in their state. If the overwhelming majority of votes from other states chooses the other candidate, then that state is out in the cold. 

My home state of Wyoming is a red state. The popular vote puts Wyoming at risk for never having their votes count if the election goes Blue as it did with Obama twice. 

Given what we are watching happen in real time, a national popular vote will NOT stop the political games from happening again.

The Democrats are gaming the electoral system with all their might, and will continue to do so any chance they get whether there is a national popular vote or not. 

Feature Photo Credit: Flag vote by Parentrap via Pixabay, cropped and modified

Written by

  • Individual states voting to disenfranchise themselves is moronic. Then again, that’s the Left for you.

    And the “get rid of the EC” people ignore something important: If the national vote was all that counted, then things would have been different in the past. Trump would have gone to California and New York more to get more votes, even if he knew he wouldn’t take the entire state.

    And does anyone think the EC discussion would be taking place if the roles were reversed and it would have helped Hillary and Biden?

  • Cameron says:

    When Obama won, those same people orgasmed about how oh so wonderful the electoral college was.

  • The Founders knew that, given the opportunity, there were two groups that would happily establish a tyranny. The majority – and the minority.

    The House was designed to prevent the tyranny of the minority. The Senate to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The Electoral College to ensure that the President would be unable to take power with only the aid of one or the other.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner