• Home
  • 2021 GA Senate Runoff Election Is Second Battle of Atlanta

2021 GA Senate Runoff Election Is Second Battle of Atlanta

William L. Kovacs

November 2020

2021 GA Senate Runoff Election Is Second Battle of Atlanta

The 2nd battle of Atlanta is on January 5, 2021. Atlanta and its suburbs comprise almost two-thirds of the population of Georgia. The battle is over two Senate seats. The winner of these seats will determine which political party controls the Senate and the policy of the nation for years to come. Currently, the Senate is 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 2 Georgia vacancies, and a Democrat vice president to break ties.

Should the Democrats win the two Georgia Senate seats, they will control the Senate.

If Democrats take control of the Senate, the left will push the nation toward massive government, staggering debt, and regulatory control over as many aspects of our lives as it can reach. If Republicans win one of the Senate seats, they maintain control of the Senate giving them the power to limit any aggressive Democrat agenda.

In the 2020 presidential election, over 5 million Georgians voted out of 7. 4 million registered voters. What is amazing – Georgia registered all but 2% of eligible voters. Turnout dramatically increased from 59% to 67%. The wildcard is that 31% of eligible voters did not vote. That is almost 2 million voters that can be recruited to vote in January. More than enough to propel either side to victory. These new voters tend to be lower-income and lean Democrat. Republicans, however, have the incumbency advantage.

Georgia historically has played a pivotal in U.S. history. In July 1864 the civil war was going poorly for President Lincoln. He was losing his fight for re-election. His Democrat opponent, General George McClellan, was calling for an armistice with the Confederacy. Atlanta was the center of military operations and supply routes for the Confederate army. Finally, a Union victory at the Battle of Atlanta. It was termed “a decisive turning point in American history” by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in its excellent 2014 pictorial history of the battle. After the Union victory, morale in the north was boosted, Lincoln was re-elected and he saved the union.

The 2021 Battle of Atlanta will also be “a decisive turning point in American history.” In 2021 the fight is again between factions holding dramatically different views of how the nation should be governed. In 1864 it was a fight between slavery and freedom. Today it is a fight between freedom from government control and a highly regulated state with a socialist agenda. If the two Democrats are elected, it will change the course of the nation as dramatically as if the South had won the Civil War.

Unlike the dictatorial procedures of the House of Representatives that allow the majority to “ram through,” legislation, the Senate is a body of patience, procedure, and decorum. Its filibuster rule allows any Senator to slow-down or obstruct legislation on the floor, almost indefinitely. The filibuster can only be broken by a supermajority vote of 60 Senators.

Over the last decade, however, the use of the filibuster has been narrowed, removing lower court judges and political appointees from its application. Last year the Senate ended the use of the filibuster for confirming Supreme Court justices.

Legislation on the Senate floor, however, is still subject to a filibuster. If the Democrats win control of the Senate, they likely will eliminate the filibuster for legislation on the floor. The effect of such a move would immediately transform the Senate into a second House of Representatives, i.e. legislation could easily be “rammed-through” on a majority vote.

Democrats will pass substantive and procedural legislation that will transform the United States. President Biden will willingly sign it.

Following the urging of Elizabeth Warren, Democrats will “go bold” on domestic matters:

Additional funding of at least $ 2 trillion for Covid-19 relief.

A Biden proposed budget of $ 7 trillion, offset by $ 4 trillion in new taxes.

Democracy Reform,” legislation designed to expand the power of government through a national voter registration program, making election day a federal holiday, public financing of federal campaigns.

Two new states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, will be given statehood. Since both would be Democrat states, it is likely the Senate would remain in Democrat control for many years.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will receive formal consent. It is an agreement between a combination of states, governed by Democrats, that comprise 270 electoral votes. Each participating state agrees to cast their presidential electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote, notwithstanding the popular vote of the respective states. In essence, this eliminates the Electoral College.

Expanding Obamacare or Medicare-for-all, another trillion dollars plus program.

Enact the ProAct which expands the universe of workers subject to being unionized by establishing union dominance in the workplace. It would also give unions a monopoly in negotiating with state and local governments and allow hundreds of thousands of “home-care” workers to unionize.

Climate Change legislation, the initial cost of $ 2 trillion, in the form of subsidies for renewable energy and infrastructure.

Easing requirements on immigration, cessation of building the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, elimination of any enforcement against sanctuary cities and the renewal of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and free health care for illegals.

Canceling the student loan debt of approximately 37 million students, estimated to cost $1.7 trillion.

Regulations and Executive Orders will be used to achieve whatever cannot be achieved by legislation. It is anticipated that a Biden administration would quickly seek to reverse the 277 Trump deregulatory rules by reinstating prior Obama rules. These regulatory reinstatements would be in the environment, energy, climate change, labor, immigration, and the economy.

The combination of massive budgets, huge increases in the national debt, progressive legislation, and new regulations would transform the nation. The real change, however, would come from the Democracy agenda that automatically registers all voters, adds two new states and de facto eliminates the electoral college.

The U.S. will be a different country from the one our founders established. There will be a one-party rule, and a voting structure difficult to change.





  • Home
  • States Seek Permanent Democratic Presidential Rule

States Seek Permanent Democratic Presidential Rule

William L. Kovacs

March 2020

States Seek Permanent Democratic Presidential Rule

This article is not about the 2020 election. It’s about a more serious effort by the Democratic party to permanently control the presidency. The effort has a non-threatening name “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” (“NPV”).

Under NPV, a state, by agreement with other states in the compact, awards all its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular national vote, notwithstanding who wins the popular vote in the respective states. The compact goes into effect when the states controlling the majority of electoral votes (270 electoral votes) join the compact.

This effort is a few states shy of ratification and so far, avoids congressional review or approval.

Whether we like it or not, our Constitution is a very malleable document. It can be manipulated by those seeking power over us. Since its ratification, political parties have manipulated it to obtain control over us. The NPV is merely an extension of those efforts.

Political parties are not mentioned in our Constitution. They are groups of individuals who organize to take control of our government by winning elections.

For the first century and a half, political parties had limited powers.  Professor Brian Porto, in “The Constitution and the Ballot Box” explains that while political parties organized a few years after the founding of our country, it was not until the 1912 elections, that the two major parties feared losing control of government to minor political parties. That year, Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party received more votes than the Republican and the Socialists won several congressional seats and over 1,200 local offices. State legislatures, to protect the two major parties, enacted laws making ballot access difficult for third-party candidates.

By limiting ballot access, the two major parties established a power sharing arrangement in which the two groups, a Republican party or Democratic party, would control, or share control of the governments across the U.S. With such control, the two major parties perpetually determined what laws are enacted, who receives government benefits and how commerce is regulated.

The effectiveness of the arrangement is astonishing. David Nir, in an article in the Daily Kos, estimates there are 519,682 elected officeholders in the United States. From scant party statistics, about 350 of these offices were won by third-party or Independent candidates. All other offices are held by the two major parties. A calculation places the third-party competitors’ share of the political market at 0.0006754%. The two major parties’ control 99.993% of elected offices.

Now comes NPV, that if ratified, and upheld by the courts, will end the two parties’ power sharing arrangement by creating one-party presidential rule.

As of February, 2020, the NPV has been adopted by 15 states and District of Columbia, representing 196 electoral votes. The ratifying states are Democrat strongholds (MD, NJ, Il, HA, WA, MA, DC, VT, CA, RI, NY, CT, CO, DE, NM, OR). Four of these states ratified in 2019.

Seventy-four more electoral votes are needed for ratification, which is possible. The measure is still active in states having 101 electoral votes and controlled by Democrats or could swing Democratic: VA (13), NC (15), WI (10), GA (16), MN (10), NH (4), AZ (11), MI (16), NV (6).

If the Democrats secure ratification, they bind every compact state to cast all votes for the presidential candidate winning the popular vote. The Democrats would no longer need to campaign nationwide, they only need to win NPV states to win the presidency.

Once Democrats gain control of the presidency in this manner, the electoral college is defunct. The NPV changes the electoral structure of the Constitution from a candidate needing to win a majority of the electoral vote, to one needing only the largest percentage of an undifferentiated, nationwide, popular vote.

If Democrats win the White House in 2020, it is likely they pick up the remaining electoral votes needed to ratify NPV.  The constitutionality of the NPV will be up to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Constitution has conflicting provisions.

Article II of the Constitution vests state legislatures with plenary power to appoint the number of electors equal to the number of electoral votes the state can cast. There is no further constitutional or federal statutory clarification on how electors are to vote. In fact, our founding fathers viewed the electoral college as a group of wise-men having a final check on the voters.

Conversely, Article I, section 10, of the Constitution, prohibits states from entering into compacts with other states, without the consent of Congress. While the literal reading of this clause appears to mandate the consent of Congress, the Supreme Court narrowed the need for congressional approvals to situations “tending to the increase of political powers in states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”

While it is likely the Supreme Court strikes down the NPV as a fundamental change in our constitutional framework, letting the conflict get that far is a massive risk for the country. The consequences of NPV need to be explored before it is “ratified” and a presidential election is in doubt.

Action: Congress needs to hold hearings on NPV to understand the limits of state power under the Compacts clause, and the scope of power held by presidential electors.

Congress needs also to explore the social, economic, and political impacts of NPV on the union.

If Congress finds NPV violates the Compact clause, it should reject it before ratification.

Organizations supporting federalism, free markets and individual liberty should start educating citizens on this issue.

This article was first published in The Libertarian Republic, March 12, 2020.