Rep. Raskin Calls for Replacing the Electoral College with the NPV


Rep. Raskin, who most people know comes from a communist family, wants to abolish the Electoral College as is and replace it with the Soros-funded National Popular Vote (NPV).

Rep Raskin and his commie dad.

“The Electoral College now – which has given us five popular-vote losers as president in our history, twice in this century alone – has become a danger, not just to democracy, but to the American people. It was a danger on January 6,” Mr. Raskin, Maryland Democrat, said in an interview on “Face the Nation” that aired Sunday.

He calls iNPV a direct popular vote, which is very misleading.

”The Framers were great, and they were patriots, but they didn’t have the benefit of experience that we’ve lived,” he said.

“We know that the Electoral College doesn’t fit anymore, which is why I’m a big supporter of the National Popular Vote interstate compact,” he said.

Do we know the Electoral College doesn’t fit anymore? We know the opposite, Raskin. He wants to neuter the Electoral College because it gives Republicans a chance to win the presidency as Democrats fill up urban areas with illegal aliens who will vote one day.


Soros’s son and several businessmen funded the movement to a National Popular Vote or NPV, aka National Popular Vote Compact or NPVC.

The National Popular Vote Compact is a state-by-state initiative in which state election officials in all states participating in the plan would award their Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who receives the largest number of popular votes in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia.

The Electoral College protects the rights of the smaller states, so they don’t lose their votes to larger states. We see something similar in states like California and New York. The large populations in their urban areas deprive the suburbs and rural areas of their vote being counted. Areas on the outskirts of the urban areas do not get an electoral vote.

In the Federalist, Hamilton explains the need to protect the public good and the rights of the minority from the possible oppression by the majority in a “direct democracy” or “popular” vote:

When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Alexander Hamilton; Federalist Papers # 68


Without the Electoral College and with the NPV, all the states in red would have no say whatsoever in the running of their federal government.

To better explain, McLaughlin uses a hypothetical example: R candidate wins 48 states by identical 54-46 margins, D wins CA, NY & DC by 75-25 margins (only three states), D wins the national popular vote. Who should win?


As few as eleven states would decide the election in the scenario below. NPV will significantly reduce the power of most states. The highly populated states will be able to gain the electoral votes. In fact, as few as 11 states could decide the Presidential election.

The NPV is a popular sound bite that will do the opposite of what it is portrayed to do. It doesn’t make each American’s vote count. It does not do that because it keeps the electoral college but misuses it. What it actually does is create a “forced merger” between heavily populated states and less populated states.

For example, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, and New Jersey had 57% of the votes cast in 2008. Together they have 270 electoral votes. That is the amount necessary to win the election. Do you want these states to decide who is President? The other states would have no say.
Why is the current structure of the electoral college so important?

Our Founding Fathers believed that the state-by-state disbursed system maintained the sovereignty of the states. It disallowed Federalism. The containment of “mischief” or voter fraud of the ACORN type is contained within states. The alternative is spreading it nationally. The electoral college provides balance and firewalls against voter fraud.

NPV will likely end the Electoral College and the Two-Party System. Whether this is constitutional is a matter for the courts. There will be numerous lawsuits on this issue should NPV become law.


It only works if they get to 270 Electoral Votes among compact members. Congress would have to approve, but if Democrats win, that will become a reality. Lawsuits will follow to test its constitutionality. It will become a mess. Democrats and a few RINOs are attempting to get it done. A lot of states have signed up. You can google it. I won’t link to them. They have a powerful, weaponized response when I do.

NPV or NPVC is a device completely divined by the Soros family and some business associates.

It is very dangerous and will destroy the Republic. It makes us socialists or communists in one fell swoop.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Vieira
John Vieira
11 months ago

Systemic Stupidity has been ’embraced’…

11 months ago

Few realize the progression of Communists during HUAC into its modern variations. They redefined themselves from Communists into the “New Left”. Their goal was the literal destruction of the US and the Western society. We are where we are because previous iterations didn’t fully accomplish the goal. Today it is done through “gender” identity. If that doesn’t succeed then even more drastic changes will soon come to pass. As Putin has stated, you destroy a culture, you destroy a country, and he said he wouldn’t allow that to happen. It began to escalate during the 80’s with ‘political correctness’. Media would cover it in such a way to make it palatable. It follows the adage, “what one generation ‘tolerates’, the next will embrace”. Now a good percentage has embraced the most radical ideology. Now it’s impossible to imagine what can be next.

A real eye opener on this was David Horowitz book – Radical Son. He was part of that Left back then and is authoritative on the origins and the progression. Well worth the read.