Virginia plans on giving electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote – despite what residents want

Share:

RICHMOND, VA- The move to get rid of the Electoral College is making more progress than you might be aware of.

Now, Virginia is well on its way to joining several states in awarding their state’s electoral votes toward the winner of the nationwide popular vote – no matter who residents in the state choose as their candidate.

Despite what Virginians may want, their state’s electors may very well defy their constituents’ will due to what residents in other states want.

True democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep deciding who is for dinner.

When the Electoral College was established as a means to elect the president of the United States, The Founding Fathers saw it as a means to compromise between the duality of a national popular vote and the desires of those residing in various portions of the country.

As of now, HB177 has already passed the Democrat-majority House in Virginia with a 51-46 vote.

If the state Senate should approve the bill, then Virginia will then become a part of what’s known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

According to the NPVIC’s website, the status of the movement is as follows:

“The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). 

It has been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia.”

While the NPVIC has only secured 196 electoral vote commitments from various states to allocate electoral votes to popular vote winners – Virginia would net the movement another 13. However, the entire notion disregards the duty of elected officials within the states truly adhering to the will of their state’s residents.

According to Virginia’s recently House-passed bill, it states the following:

“Under the compact, Virginia agrees to award its electoral votes to the presidential ticket that receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The compact goes into effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have joined the compact.” 

You see, state representatives are only willing to potentially defy their own constituents once they can safely usurp their constituents’ will. Because, to be quite frank, no voters within a state will want to keep around elected personas who refuse to hear them out.

Democrat Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak had some choice words for the movement, and also vetoed NPVIC legislation that hit his desk.

Governor Sisolak stated the following about the means to undermine a state’s will:

“Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

Apparently, that governor just wasn’t having that go down in his state:

“As Nevada’s governor, I am obligated to make such decisions according to my own conscience. In cases like this, where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada.” 

The reality is that a true democracy is nothing short of “mob rule”, where 51 percent of a populace can choose to deprive the 49 percent of whatever they so desire.

The Electoral College was a means so that every demographic could be listened to considered – from minority populaces to heavily populated areas.

If a true to form democracy was established within the United States, it would threaten the rights of many individuals. The NPVIC, if achieved, would be a potential step in that direction – which should concern everyone who cherishes their individual liberties.

Gun control measures are gaining more and more traction within the state of Virginia.

In the meantime in Virginia, last week, the House Public Safety Committee voted to ban “assault weapons”, which this bill passed in a 12 to 9 vote.

The new measures, that would potentially go into effect on July 1st, 2020, would ban weapons like the AR-15 and AK-47, magazines that hold more than 12 rounds, and even suppressors.

While the bill still requires passing within the state’s House of Delegates, and subsequently the state Senate, it should be noted that the House of Delegates is Democratic-controlled.

There’s speculation that HB961 will get passed by the House of Delegates, but might hit some roadblocks in the Senate due to some Democrats being unsupportive of the bill.

Virginia State Senator Lynwood Lewis was among those critical of a bill aimed at banning firearms and various accessories.

Back when SB16 was making waves within Virginia, Lewis marked his concerns within an op-ed on several notions being pushed by firearms bills. Lewis stated the following on the Sb16 controversy:

“As I stated publicly before the Session and as was reported in Eastern Shore news media I will not be supporting any type of ban legislation whether on a particular type of firearm or a particular type of magazine.”

Based upon the language present within HB961, it’s likely that if brought before Lewis he’d not be a fan.

While lawful owners of “assault weapons” who were in possession of the weapon prior to July 1st, 2020 may retain ownership if approved via a permit from the Department of State Police – the same cannot be said about various firearm accessories.

The language from the bill reads the following:

“The bill makes it a Class 6 felony to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, purchase, possess, or transport large-capacity firearm magazines, silencers, and trigger activators, all defined in the bill.

Any person who legally owns an assault firearm, large-capacity firearm magazine, silencer, or trigger activator on July 1, 2020, may retain possession until January 1, 2021.”

If passed, the bill would afford owners of the aforementioned 6 months to relinquish ownership or functionality of their accessories. Meaning they could either destroy them personally, give them to someone they know outside of the Commonwealth, or hand them over to local law enforcement.

LET has a private home for those who support emergency responders and vets called LET Unity.  We reinvest the proceeds into sharing untold stories of those patriotic Americans. Click to check it out.

Colorado woman uses red flag law against officer who shot and killed her knife-wielding son

What’s curious in all this is why the honing in on suppressors?

They’re not some form of attachment that makes guns magically quiet as a mouse.

Suppressors slightly reduce the decibels produced by a fired weapon so as to decrease the risk of acquiring noise-induced hearing loss. It’s been debunked numerous times – “silencers” don’t come anywhere near to making a weapon silent. So, the stance against suppressors is genuinely perplexing.

It’s at least slightly comforting that Lewis has some sensibilities when it comes to gun laws presented. Back when another senator suggested raising the age required to purchase a firearm, Lewis noted the following on that notion:

“Senator [Dick] Saslaw put in a bill which would raise the legal age for firearm purchases to twenty-one.

As a general philosophical approach to legislation which seeks to increase the age threshold from eighteen to twenty-one I have a problem, since we allow eighteen year olds to vote and in all other respects be treated as adult members of society.” 

Back when SB581 was introduced by Senator Janet Howell, which was defeated earlier this month, Lewis had some words about that proposed legislation. The bill was going to charge firearm owners with a misdemeanor if they owned unsecured firearms that anyone under 18 in the home could access.

When Lewis caught wind of that, he stated the following:

“Senator Howell has proposed SB581 which is very problematic and further highlights the cultural divide in our Commonwealth. That bill has an unintended consequence making it very difficult for our young people between the ages of fourteen and eighteen to have access to firearms for hunting and other purposes.”

While the war on gun-owners in Virginia is far from over, thankfully there’s at least one outspoken person trying to talk some sense into his party.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Share:
Related Posts