Undermining the Electoral College Boosted Tolerance for Voting Irregularities

“Of special significance to me is that we won the majority of the American people,” Joe Biden said Wednesday, adding “Every indication is that this majority will grow.” “The vice president has won more than 50 percent of the popular vote,” Biden campaign manager reinforced on a call on Thursday. “Biden is piling up a popular vote mandate for ending Trumpism,” the Nation announced in a headline the same day. 

Whether Biden won the Electoral College or not remains a contested question at the moment. But for some time, the Democrats have worked to delegitimize election results in which the Electoral College frustrates the result suggested by the national popular vote for president. 

In 2013, for example, a George Mason University law student authored an academic piece purporting to legitimize the constitutionality of the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” a scheme in which participating states agree to overrule their voters if they fail to vote for the candidate who won the national popular vote. 

Under this scheme, for example, a state such as Michigan or Pennsylvania, which signed the compact, could toss aside votes for a Republican candidate if the Democrat ran up enough votes in Democratic strongholds of California and New York to achieve a popular vote victory. (As a matter of fact, the bulk of Biden’s current popular vote margin could be attributed almost entirely to California.)

Democrats never gathered enough support to amend the constitution or even to secure a majority of Electoral College vote-holding states to formally launch the circumvention of the Electoral College. Not officially, anyway. But was that ever the point? As we watch the vote-counting shenanigans unfold in battleground states, Democrats fighting to align the Electoral College result with the popular vote have been assured that they are pursuing a greater democratic good.

In March, the New York Times continued to lay the groundwork for this moment. “The Electoral College is worse than merely useless,” the Times editorialized. “Its primary function is to malapportion political power, and it does so—indeed, has always done so—with strikingly awful consequences.” In 

July, the influential Brookings Institution (which played a key role in undermining the 2016 election with the Russia collusion hoax) wrote, “The Supreme Court’s ‘faithless electors’ decision validates the case for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.” 

The Washington Post recently published a “study” whose authors warned that “the damage would be substantial,” if another election results in a win for a candidate who lost the popular vote.

We don’t know if the multiple allegations of irregularities will pan out. After four years of the Russia collusion hoax, we need to be disciplined about producing evidence to support allegations of election illegitimacy. But for some time, the media has conditioned the American public to believe that it harms democracy to allow the Electoral College process to diverge from the popular vote. Thus, the lack of media curiosity in investigating allegations of irregularities should be understood in the context of what left-leaning media consider to be the “greater good” of the popular vote. 

Democrats believe they have the legitimacy of a Biden popular vote win. Changes to rules, counting procedures, observer access to counting, and voter eligibility feel like illegitimate election shenanigans to Republicans. But not to Democrats. They’ve been conditioned to believe the real election illegitimacy is the Electoral College itself. Big Tech has worked to suppress voter fraud allegations through censorship rather than working to dispel them with greater transparency. 

Because the Electoral College has been delegitimized in the minds of so many Democrats, they don’t feel the need for transparency in the electoral processes of individual battleground states.

If Biden achieves an Electoral College victory, Democrats and their allies in media will continue to brush off allegations of irregularities that, if the situation were reversed, would receive considerable attention as they did in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race and the North Carolina ballot harvesting controversy. 

In Democrats’ minds, Biden won the popular vote and that’s all that should really matter. The successful public relations campaign against the Electoral College means there will be little outrage over compromising a process that the Democrats already consider illegitimate.

About Adam Mill

Adam Mill is a pen name. He works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri. Mill has contributed to The Federalist, American Greatness, and The Daily Caller.

Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

8 responses to “Undermining the Electoral College Boosted Tolerance for Voting Irregularities”

  1. “Tolerance” for voting irregularities (for which that is a tremendous understatement; a better word is “grand theft election) is based on whether the person benefits or is harmed by this action. For instance, Russia made a few false ads in 2016, and this was WWIII by the left; but in 2020 with historic levels of fraud, no problem there, all is well in Beijing.

    The big-city Democrat machines have specialized in fraud.

    • This article is about feelings. I am far beyond the point of worrying about peoples feelings.

  2. Biden didn’t win the popular vote. That’s the point. They are coming up with millions of ballot in the middle of the night all for Biden. We refused to deal with the Democrat Crime Syndicate for decades, and now we’re paying the price. The only way to end it now is civil war. Your choice is to surrender or fight.

  3. So what are we going to do? Specifically: when will concrete, Executive Branch action be taken against the traitors and tyrants now presenting a clear and imminent danger to our American way of life- nay, our very existence? (If there is even a distinction between the 2: ‘Give me liberty or give me death.’) Those malefactors are now full-on laughing at us, a la Thrasymachus: Cry all you want, patriots, ‘might makes right.’ Problem for them is, at this moment in political time, but not for much longer, they are not even CLOSE to being more powerful than we are. Without going into the details, which you can all imagine, the President is administratively capable of simply Nancy Reaganing the Dem’s latest coup: ‘Just say no.’ I have it from a reliable source that 95% of the military support him. Somebody like Levin would be more than happy to sic the US Marshalls on JB, HRC, BO, and their FBI/CIA enablers. Let them languish in prison: trials might not even be necessary. And when the BLM riots, which (you’ve noticed) are no longer taking place, recommence- well, that’s when the fun really begins. Now somebody please tell me why such measures shouldn’t be taken, that is to say, why they would likely fail. Why not throw Thrasymachus right back at them? After all, they pose, by their own stated intentions, a threat to the US Constitution, which the President is sworn to protect, not to mention are literally as evil as Hell.

  4. ‘Democrats never gathered enough support to amend the constitution or even to secure a majority of Electoral College vote-holding states to formally launch the circumvention of the Electoral College. Not officially, anyway. But was that ever the point? As we watch the vote-counting shenanigans unfold in battleground states, Democrats fighting to align the Electoral College result with the popular vote have been assured that they are pursuing a greater democratic good.’

    Adam Mill — not the that outcome of this election and the heartburn on your side concerning Biden controversially winning all the electoral votes in the ‘battleground states’ GA, WI, AZ, NV and PA (according to the locally controlled procedures in those states) is due to the nature of the current system.

    A state becomes an ‘important battleground’ only if the demographic split between GOP and Dem strongholds within the state is close to 50-50. The discourages voting in most of the country. And there is going to be enormous heartbreak in Arizona, Wisconsin on George (all bitterly divided) when one candidate wins by a fraction of a per cent and then gets 100% of the electoral vote .

    If you defend the merits of the electoral college, then please explain why the winner-takes-all format is better than the proportional system used by Maine and Nebraska. Maine (safely blue at state level) and Nebraska (safely red) are both small states, yet both Trump and Biden were actively competing there in marked contrast to the neighboring states who employ the usual winner-takes-all format. If the “Wyoming and California both ought to start with two electoral votes” argument is considered so important, then a variation of the Maine/Nebraska format could be adapted instead of the NPV. But this of course makes sense only if everyone does it.

    I know the clowns at Prager University are peddling propaganda videos extolling the supposed eternal virtues of the existing winner-takes-all EC system. But almost all of their arguments are bogus when you actually examine them in closer detail. The only pro-EC argument which makes some superficial sense is the idea that the small state vote deserves some limited protection. This means getting rid of the “winner takes all” element ought to be acceptable as the basic 100 electoral vote apportion really does not affect the overall outcome as long as the remaining 438 EVs are allocated according to population size. So that might be a decent compromise, if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is deemed unacceptable.

    • What nonsense. Consider that since Dems still adhere to the superdelegate system in choosing presidential candidates, they will never abide by anything resembling an at large popular vote for president. Satrapies in NY, CA, IL and elsewhere only demonstrate how that party relies on regional control to dictate its platform to the rest of us.

  5. Be aware that the interstate electoral compact proposal becomes invalid when the full provisions of Art. II are invoked: A state may simply refuse to certify an election for the purpose of appointing electors. That would, if no EC majority is comprised, punt the election to the Senate, and the appointment of a veep to the House (a swell way to finally get rid of Kamala, and clear the way for a justifiable impeachment of Joe!)

    But how about this? Could an aggrieved state call for a do-over special election for prez in time for a proper EC vote and inauguration date? A court reading of federal supremacy and the Nov. 4th requirement may say no. — but clearly, the constitutional mechanics of law are a question of political will and the right to correct election errors, so consider that.

    So NV, AZ, MI, PA — grow some brass ones and take up my proposal!