Beware: The Progressive Ruse to Abolish the Electoral College Gains More Ground

Are you worried yet? If you’re not, perhaps you would like to know just who is involved in these faceless organizations and groups who talk incessantly about “fairness” and use phrases like “democracy now” and “one person, one vote.”

Make no mistake: These groups are advocating for a Popular Vote versus the Electoral College because of the exact reasons just explained on the previous page. But in order to get there, a lot of work needs to be done in convincing the public that RCV systems are meant to make things more “fair.”

That’s where Democracy Fund comes in. They provide generous grants for FairVote.org to push its RCV agenda and with the help of illustrious professors, they can make RCV systems sound almost scientifically pure.

FairVote.org:

In 2013, FairVote received a generous grant from the Democracy Fund to conduct a comprehensive two-year study of the impact of ranked choice voting (RCV) on campaign cooperation and civility in local elections in the U.S. As part of the project, the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll, with Professor Caroline J. Tolbert (University of Iowa) and Professor Todd Donovan (Western Washington University), conducted two rigorous independent opinion polls exploring voters’ experiences in local campaigns and elections.

Professor Caroline J. Tolbert wrote about “priming presidential votes by direct democracy.” You’ll hear that a lot in many of the papers in which she is involved. These very wordy write-ups about politics and setting agendas are wrapped up in something called “direct democracy.” This is the practice by those who wish to sway voters of placing unpopular or on-the-cusp issues on the ballot in order to force the public to think about the issues and then render an opinion. This practice ensures that agenda items like gay marriage or legalized marijuana are put into the public eye and more likely to become key issues.

Professor Todd Donovan is much more focused on more polarizing issues like how white voters react to candidates of color or how the Electoral College is a hindrance to free and open elections.

Sage Journals:

This article draws on the racial threat thesis to test if white voters who lived in areas with larger African American populations were less receptive to Barack Obama in 2008. Racial context is found to structure white voters’ evaluations of Obama and, thus, affect where the Democrats gained presidential vote share over 2004. The overall Democratic swing was lower in states where a white Democrat (Hillary Clinton) had more appeal to white voters than Obama. Obama increased the Democrats’ share of the white vote, but gains were associated with positive evaluations of Obama among white voters in places with smaller African American populations. The likelihood that a white voter supported Obama also decreased as the African American population of the respondent’s congressional district increased. The results are relevant to discussions of the future of the Voting Rights Act and to conceptions of a “postracial” America.

In other words, when white voters are exposed more to black neighbors, they are less likely to vote for a person of color because they’re…well…racists.

These are the people who are in charge of validating the RCV systems and assuring us that they are fair and allow for the greatest chance at a best-case scenario election outcome. These are the people attempting to ensure that America will eventually be handcuffed to the entirety of the Progressive agenda, no matter how radical it is. Imagine an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez having the ability to push the Green New Deal through Congress based solely on the fact that there are none there to oppose it!

Turn to the final page to read about the ultimate slap in the face to America and the mastermind of this brilliantly devious strategy, one that couldn’t even have been concocted by Homer Simpson’s boss, Charles Montgomery Burns!NEXT PAGE »