The History of Assault Weapons by Curtis Cappellano

The definition of a so-called “assault rifle” or “assault weapon” changes as needed – or more specifically, as leftists redefine words to fit their agenda.

Originally the term assault rifle was a term Germans used in World War II for their lightweight, select fire, box magazine fed machine gun – the Sturmgewehr. It was a propaganda term attributed to Hitler that was meant to instill fear.

The term assault rifle was changed to assault weapon around 1989. Prior to 1989, the term “‘assault weapon” did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. “Assault weapon” is a political term developed by anti-gun advocates to convince people that some guns are too scary, effective, ergonomic (or something), for U.S. citizens to own and the term was used for the advancement of gun control legislation.

In 1994 the federal assault weapons ban was enacted which defined an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine (that had the appearance of a machine gun) and had TWO “scary evil features” such as a foldable stock or a bayonet lug. Some other guns were thrown in, as well, such as shotgun with a revolving cylinder.  (The law was repealed in 2004 as even the left recognized it was ineffective.)

Then came the 2013 NYS “un”SAFE ACT, which defined an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that had ONE “scary evil feature”, such as a foldable stock or bayonet lug. Do you see how the assault weapon definition is changing?  Don’t stop reading.

Now the NY State Bar Association is pushing the trend further by their definition of an assault weapon as “high-powered semi-automatic firearms that are capable of autoloading a new cartridge into the chamber after the gun is discharged,” with NO evil features specified! (November 2020). As it is written, it includes handguns too. (https://nysba.org/nysba-recommends-new-laws-to-reduce-mass-shootings)

This interpretation is also being used by Maura Healey, the Attorney General of Massachusetts, who interprets “copies” of the AR-15 or AK-47 to be assault weapons, even if they have NO evil features.  But she says she won’t enforce a confiscation for grandfathered rifles at this time.  (And the time is 11:40.)

So now you see the “assault weapon” definition evolving (creeping) as the leftists change it to meet their agenda. Next the attempt will be made to include all semi-automatic rifles (we are seeing this trend now), even currently compliant ones, as well as semi-automatic shotguns and semi-automatic pistols.

The next time someone says the term “assault weapon”, tell them that term is a garbage term. It’s made up and manipulated by politicians and gun-grabbers so that they keep changing it to suit their agenda.

The Problem of Self-Interest in Congress by Harold Moskowitz

There is a long standing but growing problem facing our legislative process; self-interest of the legislators.  When the Founders set up a government based upon virtue, it was expected that legislators would represent the interests of the district which elected them.  The assumption was that after one or two terms these representatives would return to private life where they could pursue self-interest.

Today, it would be hard to find virtue in the Washington “Swamp.”  Many in Congress have become “career politicians.”  Personal interests are often represented, not those of the People.  Many legislators - of both political parties - often enter Congress as “middle class” but after decades in office they and close family members often become multi-millionaires.  During their time in office, their allegiance is often to the industries which funded their campaigns or contributed to their personal wealth. Financial connections to foreign-owned corporations also can affect their legislative functioning while in office.  In addition, promises made before an election are often broken after the election.

After attaining retirement, with a large taxpayer funded pension, many become highly paid “lobbyists” representing the interests of the same industries which helped to fund their campaigns.  The problem of allegiance to corporate interests is widespread and needs to be addressed through meaningful reforms.

There needs to be term limits added to the Constitution.  In addition, there needs to be a stronger post-retirement “lobbying” law which would place restrictions on post-retirement “lobbying.”  For instance, the law could prevent “lobbying” for ten years after the retirement date. 

Those who claim that elections already serve the term-limiting function fail to realize the power of “name/face recognition” and, especially, the greater access to campaign funding for incumbents to aid in their reelection.  There is already a two-term limit for Presidents.  Why not for legislators?

Members of Congress will neither propose a term-limiting amendment nor pass one on to the states for ratification.  When a new amendment is needed, the Framers gave us an alternative method for overcoming this type of resistance from Congress.  Article V of the Constitution allows for the states, in lieu of Congress, to propose necessary amendments.

 If important reforms are not made in our legislative process to deal with the growing threat of using public office for personal gain, then fewer citizens will think it necessary or worthwhile to be involved in the election process.  Yet, now more than ever, the survival of our constitutional republic requires their involvement and participation.

The New Socialism (Part 2) by Tom Reynolds

On Monday, I wrote about the new “Democratic Socialism” differing (or not) from the “Old Socialism” of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Kim Jong-un.  It pointed out how the “new Socialism” still believes in using the government’s power to punish those who have a difference of opinion (in spite of the 1^st Amendment protecting quaint ideas like “Freedom of Speech and Religion”.  The “Old Socialism” leaders practiced another standard, that the rules didn’t apply to them.  Will the new “Democratic Socialism” do away with this inequality? 

Under the new Democratic Socialism:

• California’s Governor Newsome dined indoors at an exclusive restaurant (the “French Laundry”) after telling Californians not to dine indoors;
• San Francisco Mayor London Breed gathered with friends to dine (at the same “French Laundry”), after telling San Franciscans to not gather to dine;
• San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo attended a big gathering after telling people to cancel big gatherings; 
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went without a mask in a beauty parlor after chiding the American people to wear masks; 
• Senator Diane Feinstein went without a mask at an airport after calling on the Federal Aviation Administration to adopt "mandatory" mask mandates at airports.

In case anyone believes I am intentionally picking on California, there are others worth mentioning.  Under the new Democratic Socialism:

• D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser traveled to an election celebration in Delaware after it was put on a high risk travel advisory;
• Austin Texas Mayor Steve Adler told people in Austin not to travel in a message he sent from Cabo San Lucas Mexico; 
• Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot got a haircut after ordering Chicago’s salons and barbershops to close down;
• Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s husband sought to use his wife’s position to circumvent restrictions to get the family boat in the water.
• Our own “Dear Leader” Andrew Cuomo traveled to a mandatory quarantine state (Georgia) and then did not quarantine himself. 

The new “Democratic Socialism” political leaders want to save us and the way to do that – in their minds – is to put them in charge.  Shouldn’t we expect them to obey the rules they set for us and operate within legal constraints?  They seem to believe in legal constraints similar to those in Russia in the late 1930’s, where Stalin’s opponents were all legally tried before being executed; it’s not important that the trials only lasted ten minutes.

But we have the Constitution to protect us, right?  Except for left wing judges who believe the Constitution says what the left wants it to say, not what the Constitution’s authors meant when they wrote it. 

New Democratic Socialist leaders would give more power to the government - and the UN - to act in our best interests and protect us.  What better demonstrates the hypocrisy of Democratic Socialism than putting John Kerry in charge of Climate Change policies.  You remember Kerry - he’s the guy who shuttles between his wife’s several mansions in her private plane and commutes around in SUV’s.  First stopfor Kerry will probably be a visit with Governor Newsom to discuss climate change - over dinner at the “French Laundry”. 

Georgia is on the 14 day quarantine list.  Let’s see how many politicians and celebrities quarantine themselves after visiting Georgia before the January congressional elections.  Oh, I forgot – they’re essential.

If there is a motto for the new Democratic Socialism it is, “Do as I say, not as I do”.  They don’t seem to be aware of, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. 

Do these socialists ignore their own rules simply because they can or because the rules are just an excuse for control and have no valid purpose?

One thing for certain is that we can never trust what the new Democratic Socialist’s tell us.  So, when they say we don’t need a gun, we need a gun!

The New Socialism by Tom Reynolds

One of the first acts of Socialist tyrants is to get rid of their political foes – or anyone they believe might potentially become a political foe.  Imprison or execute your foes; Stalin did it; Mao did it; Hitler did it; Kim Jong-un does it.  Socialist sociopaths didn’t invent that strategy, it goes back through the ages.  Roman emperors did it.  European kings did it.  France’s Robespierre did it.  Russia’s Ivan the Terrible did it.

But that was Stalin’s, Mao’s, Hitler’s and Kim’s “Old Socialism”.  We now have the benefit of “Democratic Socialism”, which is new and different from its predecessors – or so its proponents would have us believe.  But is it?

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for the archiving of the public statements of Trump supporters, tweeting, “Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future”?  (An elected representative in a democratic republic is setting the stage for retribution against fellow citizens for the crime of holding a different opinion.)

Evan McMullin ran for president in 2016 (remember him?).  He recently said, “We should keep and publish a list of everyone who assists Trump’s frivolous and dangerous attacks on the election”. (This came from a guy who spent the last four years calling Trump a Fascist.)

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote, “Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not…follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into polite society. We have a list”.  (Senator Joseph McCarthy is vilified by the left for saying, “I have a list…”  Of course, he referring to a list of Communists.) 

Others vow to make sure we, “Remember What They Did…we’re launching the Trump Accountability Project to make sure anyone who took a paycheck…is held responsible for what they did.”  A project leader tweeted, “WH staff are starting to look for jobs. Employers considering them should know there are consequences for hiring anyone who helped Trump.”  The project’s website defined, at one time or another, those that should be held accountable: anyone who voted for Trump (all 70 million?); anyone who worked for the Trump for President campaign, Republican National Committee and affiliated PACs; anyone who worked for President Trump in any role as a political appointee or who donated to his campaigns; any Administration staffer, campaign staffer, bundler or lawyer who represented the Trump administration. Their list even includes nonpolitical staff in the Trump White house such as secretaries, calligraphers, and stenographers.  The goal is to prevent anyone associated with Trump from ever being gainfully employed again.

Will Trump supporters have to wear a MAGA patch as the new equivalent of the star of David that Jews wore under Hitler?

This movement should not come as a surprise to anyone.  From the very start of Trump’s presidency, the “Deep State” has gone after anyone associated with Trump.  The message was clear, if you work for Trump – or are Trump - the “Deep State” will destroy you.  (Does the Deep State sound like a form of the Old Socialism where the government elite have complete control over every other citizen’s life, rights and actions.  After all, they know best and would never work in their own self-interest.  Note: sarcasm intended.)

The effort was not limited to Trump supporters but included the President and his family.  Remember the investigations into Trump’s tax returns for years past by Socialist officials from deep blue states (where they will not suffer any retribution).  Not to mention, the entire Russia hoax.  And do not believe that it will stop when Trump leaves office; the “Deep State” needs to send a message that anyone who challenges their power, even a legally elected President of the United States, will pay, sooner or later.  

Our Founding Fathers recognized that government, especially big government, is the most dangerous foe to individual rights.  Only government can legally imprison you and execute you.  The founders set up a system of government to protect us from that government, but those protections will not survive a Socialist government that is allowed to ignore the Constitution and laws. 

The Socialists are making a list and checking it twice, they’re going to find out who they believe are naughty or nice – and the former will pay! 

Which, by-the-way, is why we have a 2^nd Amendment. 

The Time Has Come for SCOPE Members to Do More by John Elwood

Presumptive President-Elect Joe Biden has a history of restricting gun rights.  In 1993, then Senator Biden supported the Brady Handgun Prevention Act and in 1994 he helped pass a 10-year ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.  (The ban was ineffective and not renewed but that lesson has been lost on Biden.) 

Presumptive President-Elect Biden’s new administration is planning to propose a significant number of firearms’ legislation including: banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines; restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase to one per month; doing away with the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” which would result in bankrupting firearms manufacturers with law suits; taxing rifle owners $200 for each rifle and $200 for each high capacity magazine. 

It is time for SCOPE members to do more than just attend monthly meetings.

Membership in gun rights organizations like SCOPE is extremely important, especially now, with a liberal administration about to take office.  SCOPE membership increased after the SAFE ACT but attendance at monthly meetings remained low, even with the possibility of degradation or loss of our Second Amendment rights.  When gun owners were asked why they did not join SCOPE and SCOPE members were asked why they didn’t attend SCOPE meetings, their answer was, basically, “life gets in the way”.  Apathy reigned at epidemic levels.  With the new administration in Washington, SCOPE members and gun owners no longer have the luxury of apathy and not getting involved.  It is not enough for SCOPE members to just attend a month meeting.  We must do more.

What must we do? 

Individual SCOPE members must get more involved by:  reading and studying current and proposed firearms legislation (like S7065/AO 1589A which require the purchaser of any firearm, rifle or shotgun to pass a mental health evaluation); laying out your position on specific firearms legislation to your state and federal legislators and, when needed, traveling to Albany to meet with legislators; helping increase membership by talking to family and friends about joining SCOPE;

If we do not get more involved with NY State firearms legislation, we will lose our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  Make a new year’s resolution to become more involved in 2021.  Our constitutional right to keep and bear arms may depend on your involvement. 

If Dead People Can Vote, What Is Stopping Gun Owners? by Tom Reynolds

19.4 million people live in NY State.

12.4 million New Yorkers are registered and active voters.                   

6.8 million New Yorkers voted in the 2020 election.

3.8 million New Yorkers voted for Biden in 2020.

3.6 million New Yorkers voted for Cuomo in 2018.

5.0 million New Yorkers own guns! 

6 votes are the difference in a congressional race in Iowa, after a recount of 394,000 votes.

13 votes are the difference in the Tenney vs Brindisi race for the 22^nd Congressional District in Upstate NY and a judge is currently reviewing ballots, including those of 3 dead people.  (If dead people can vote, what is stopping gun owners?)

4.9 million people voted in Georgia and David Perdue led by 90 thousand votes but he lacked the 13 thousand more needed to reach 50% and avoid a January runoff election.  (If he got 1 more vote for every 200 that he got, he would not have a runoff election on January.)

The National Education Association (NEA) is the largest union in the entire USA with approximately 3 million members nationwide of which 431 thousand are in New York State. If 60% of the gun owners in New York would vote, we would be as large as the NEA is in the entire country and be the most powerful lobby, by far, in New York State.  (Politicians would sell their 1^st born for 3 million votes!) 

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have promised to do away with 2^nd Amendment rights.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already been trying that for years.  Andrew Cuomo never met a gun control bill he didn’t like.  These are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse for 2^nd Amendment rights; what further motivation do gun owners need?  

Based on membership application responses, most SCOPE members are registered to vote.  Do they actually vote…?  Since they care enough to join SCOPE and probably joined other 2A organizations such as the NRA and NYSRPA, we’re “preaching to the choir” about voting.  But those who are missing are the millions of gun owners who don’t vote.  We need to focus on reaching those non-voters and getting them to register and vote.  We’ve got two years until the next major election and now is the time to start.

At this point, most SCOPE members are saying “Yeah”… and delegating up to state SCOPE to do the work.  It won’t work.  To be successful in reaching the non-voting gun owner, this needs to be a combined effort of the SCOPE State Board, the chapters and individual members of SCOPE acting on their own or with the chapters and the state.

First, we need information.  Information on proposed laws, information about the laws already enacted and information on the voting records of politicians.  The more we know, the more we can arm ourselves and act (not react, we need to be on the offensive.)  You don’t have to be a chapter officer or state board member to do this.  All you need is a little time and a computer to research this on-line.  It’s not complicated.  And it gives meaning and a worthwhile cause to pursue. 

But first you have to volunteer.

There is a lot more to do if we are going to reach the non-voting gun owner and we will be explaining this in the future, but this is the start - the foundation.  When congressional elections are being decided by a handful of votes, it’s worth the effort. 

New York State Recreational Survey raises concerning questions.

Recently, some of our members in parts of New York State have received a survey from what claims to be the “New York State Office of Addiction and Supports.”  SCOPE has inquired with NYSOAS if this is legitimate or a scam, as there are some questionable aspects to it, but has not yet received a reply.

The survey offers respondents a gift card and claims that answers will be kept confidential.  However, the survey contains your address and a bar code that could conceivably be used to identify anyone who answers.

Please note that several of the questions on the survey, if answered, could render you ineligible for a pistol permit if the information is later shared with a licensing agency.    The survey claims that answers will be held confidential.  However, under New York State Freedom of Information (FOIL) Law, “every New York State or municipal department, board, bureau, division, commission, committee, public authority, public corporation, council, office or other governmental entity performing a governmental or proprietary function” is subject to the open records law.  FOIL is based on a “presumption of access,” meaning that all records are accessible, except records or portions of records that fall within one of eleven categories of deniable records (NY FOIL §87[2]).

Please also remember that New York is a “Red Flag” law state, meaning that “individuals who show signs of being a threat to themselves or others” can be prevented from purchasing or possessing any kind of firearm.

Based on this, we recommend that any member of S.C.O.P.E. who receives this survey proceed at their own risk.    Several of our members have already said that they plan to throw the survey, and the gift cards, into the trash and not respond.    This may be a wise decision.  Fifteen dollars is a very cheap price for your rights of privacy and to keep and bear arms.

Again, proceed at your own risk!

It should be also noted that laws are being proposed to require a mental health examination be taken and passed in order to purchase any firearm or ammunition.  Be very careful about anything you put in writing – even the smallest comment might be used against you at some future date.

The Left Has A Problem by Tom Reynolds

During election coverage, one of the networks asked a retired general: what if President Trump refuses to give up the presidency?  The general then starts talking about Trump calling out his supporters and there being riots in the streets and blood being shed.

I thought, “Oh, you mean like what Antifa, Black Lives Matter and the Democrats have been doing for the last six months”?

In contrast to the general’s concerns, that same evening, I saw on TV a protest by Trump supporters and the reporter commented that it was peaceful.  Not mostly peaceful. Peaceful.

We’ve all seen videos of the daily protests that destroyed many of our inner cities (unless all you watch is CNN, then maybe you missed them).  Oregon Governor Kate Brown ordered the activation of the National Guard to quell months of rioting in Portland, THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION!  (Brown had rejected Trump’s offer to bring in the National Guard, months ago.)

What the riots and Brown’s actions demonstrate is that, to the left, violence is just another way to achieve their objectives and if there is collateral damage, so be it.  But to the right, we actually believe in law and order; that arson and looting are crimes; that “do unto others” is more than just religious verbiage.  That’s why it is hard for us to recognize how evil the radical left leadership really is.  We believe in underlying goodness while the left makes no pretense of caring about goodness, morality or ethics.  They simply rationalize away their misdeeds. 

But in pursuit of their agenda, (power by any means) the radical left has a problem.  It’s called the 2^nd Amendment.  Actually, it’s called the entire Constitution of the United States but it’s 2A that really scares them.  They would love to just impose their agenda on us, like the Storm Troopers in Nazi Germany.  But unlike 1930’s Germany, we have guns…lots of them.  Probably about 250 million of them.

This abundance of guns creates some indecision on the part of the radical left.  On one hand, they know gun owners are much more peaceful and law abiding than the left and they wonder if we would really use our firepower.  But they also know about the “Golden Mean”, which is “that indefinable point between try and try again and enough is enough”.  They worry about pushing us over into “enough is enough”. 

The left has another problem and that is the record level of NICS checks and gun sales, especially new sales to women.  They worry that this movement may be significant enough to impact their reelection chances, if they pursue more gun control?  They will, of course, try to disguise any efforts as “common sense” and it will be our job to expose this lie. 

Actually, not all of them are concerned about pushing us over the line and into a shooting scenario.  Those that want to “fundamentally change” the U.S. might be quite happy to see the U.S. disintegrate into civil wars.  Will the Republicans and any moderate leftists be able to rein in the leftist radicals short of civil war?  

The radical left believes in gun control.  Lots of it.  Common sense or not, they believe citizens should not be armed.  Not for any reasons that are spoken of publicly but because an armed citizenry is a danger to tyrants, which is exactly why the Second Amendment was written.  The Founding Fathers were not going deer hunting, they had just fought a war to free a nation and they meant to keep it from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Our job is to continue what the Founding Fathers started.

A Few History Lessons For The Media  by Tom Reynolds

The media’s hysterical reaction to Donald Trump challenging the election highlights their lack of knowledge – or willful ignorance – of law and history.  A few “blasts from the past”, some of which you may remember.

Al Gore took more than five weeks to acknowledge defeat in the 2000 election to George W. Bush.  Gore called for selective recounts in heavily Democratic Florida counties while attempting to block the inclusion of military absentee ballots. It took more than a month of legal battles, recounts, and a Supreme Court decision to bring Gore to a concession.

The Gore v Bush election was decided by just 537 votes in Florida.  Democrats still say, to this day, that it was stolen.  But - after the dust settled – a group of newspapers (including the reliably Democratic NY Times) did their own count and…Bush won, again.

Some in the current media have praised Gore’s concession speech as a model for what Trump should immediately do, ignoring that it took 5 weeks for Gore to concede.

The 1960 race between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon was filled with accusations that Democratic political machines—in Chicago, in particular—manufactured votes for Kennedy.  (Chicago…corrupt…say it aint so.)  Nixon considered challenging the election results in Illinois and a number of other states, but ultimately decided to concede for the sake of the country and his political career.

The 1876 election between Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes had a turnout of 82% of eligible voters.  Ballot stuffing may have had something to do with the high turnout.  (That couldn’t happen today…could it?) 

Tilden won the popular vote but neither candidate won enough electoral votes; 20 disputed electoral votes from four states would decide the majority. Each party reported its candidate had won the four states and one elector was replaced after being declared illegal for being an "elected or appointed official".  An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute.  The Compromise of 1877 awarded all 20 electoral votes to the Republican, Hayes, and he became President by 1 vote.  Since political deals required a quid-pro-quo for the Democrats, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction. The effect of the Compromise was to cede power in the Southern states to the Democrats, who proceeded to disenfranchise black voters.

In the four way race in 1824 between Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William Crawford, no candidate won a majority of the electoral vote.  Andrew Jackson won the most popular and electoral votes but not a majority, so the election went to the House of Representatives.  On February 9, 1825, two months after the election, the House elected John Quincy Adams as President. 

The Constitution eliminated House Speaker Henry Clay from being considered, after he finished fourth in the voting, and he threw his support to Adams.  After Adams won, Clay was nominated to be the Secretary of State.  At that time, the Secretary of State was considered the stepping stone to the Presidency.  Jackson and his supporters called “foul” on this but were unable to do anything.

And talk about not conceding the election…

Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, insisted that Trump colluded with Russians to steal the 2016 election, a story that most major media outlets ran with for years without providing any hard evidence.  When the Mueller report blew holes in that effort, they then impeached the President over a phone call.

Before the recent election, Hillary Clinton’s advice to Joe Biden was to not concede the election.

Georgia state Representative, Democrat Stacey Abrams, lost the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election to Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, by almost 55,000 votes.  Abrams has never conceded defeat. She is often asked by left wing media to give her opinion on the current election controversy.

Both Nixon and Jackson did not – or were not able to – contest the election and both were eventually elected President.  Clay was never able to convert the Secretary of State position into the Presidency.  Gore, Tilden and Clinton disappeared from presidential politics.  Abrams is still hanging around as a TV commentator, pretending to be a force in Democrat politics.  Gore and Clinton were able to become multi-millionaires.

The USA has been here before and probably will be again.  Fraud has happened before and probably will happen again, since at least one party benefits from fraud and has no reason to stop it.  A few weeks delay in deciding the presidency has happened before and will probably happen again.  Isn’t it worth the delay to ensure our voting system is secure?

Electoral College  by Tom Reynolds

The left is trying to do away with the Electoral College and replace it, directly or indirectly with the popular vote.  In the Electoral College, each state gets one vote for each Senator and one vote for each Representative.  (A minimum of 3.  Eight states and D.C. have only 3 votes.) It would take a constitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College.  All but two states have a winner take all approach; whoever wins the majority of the popular vote in that state gets all the electoral votes, whether the majority was by one vote or one million votes. 

Keep in mind that the Electoral College helps protect the minority (small states) from the tyranny of the majority (large states). 

There are some interesting numbers that need to be considered:

  As of July 1, 2019, the USA’s population was estimated at 328 million people. 

  The 10 most populated states had 178,000,000 (54% of the total population). 

  The next 10 most populated states had 71 million (22% of the population). 

  Combined, the top 20 states had 249 million (76% of the population).

  The 30 least populated states have only 24% of the population.  (The 30 least populated states are certainly the minority that needs to be protected.)

California (population 39 million) has the most electoral and popular votes but gets little attention during the campaign since it will reliably go Democrat.  Nevada (population 3 million) has only 6 electoral votes but it got a lot of attention even though its vote was fairly evenly split. 

If the President was elected by only the popular vote, the 30 least populated states would get much less attention from presidential candidates (before and after the election) since the election would depend on voter turnout and piling up numbers in the top 20 states - or maybe only the top 10 states.

There is another reason to keep the Electoral College.

In the current election, several states are very evenly split and there are numerous legal challenges as well as a possible recount in those states.  Imagine a national popular vote that was close and we had lawsuits and recounts in all 50 states!

What is the chance that the Democrats can pass a Constitutional Amendment and do away with the Electoral College?  Unless the bottom 30 states have a death wish, virtually zero.  (Unfortunately, some states do seem to have that death wish.)

One way the Amendment process can start is in Congress but if Republicans win in Georgia’s special election, they can use their majority in the Senate to stop it.

An Amendment can also start if: two-thirds of the states (34 states) call a constitutional convention to draft a proposed amendment or if the Democrats have the majority in the Senate (they win both Georgia elections) and Congress passes the proposed amendment.  In both cases, the proposed amendment must then get the approval of three-fourths of the states (38 states).  Again, unless the bottom 30 states have a death wish, it won’t happen. 

What if the deep blue states in the bottom 30 decided to vote for the proposed amendment, would that be enough?  There are only 8 deep blue states in the bottom 30.  And only 10 of the top 20 are deep blue.  Well short of the 38 needed.

There are about 23 reliably Republican states that should not, in their worst moment of madness, ever consider doing away with the Electoral College.

Democrats are trying another approach; on a state by state basis, they want to have each state assign all of their state’s electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. (Assuming that the party they favor will forever win the national popular vote is a very chancy assumption since the future is…well…unknown.)  A smaller state could vote 100% for a candidate, but if that candidate loses the national popular vote, that state’s citizens will have lost their voice.  Any small state that agrees to that - and some small blue states have - would be giving away all of its votes to the 10 largest deep blue states.

Apparently, political suicides do happen because 16 states have entered into an interstate compact and agreed to do this; 14 are deep blue and the other 2 lean blue.  9 of the 16 are relatively small to small states who, apparently, believe in political suicide.  (New York is the 4^th most populated state – and declining – and is one of the 16).  The agreement would not take effect until these states had a majority of the electoral college votes in the agreement.  If a Republican should take the popular vote in a coming election, how many states would reconsider their commitment to this?

By the way, interstate agreements for political purposes require Congress’ approval and Congress has not given its approval, so the agreement is currently illegal.  But hey, legality never stopped Democrats.