The Great Reset: Are You Ready?

In a nutshell, the final stages of the New World Order are happening now.

The links that I have provided below show 2020 global leaders in many fields and governments discussing very openly the”Great Reset.” Rather than explaining in detail what the the Great Reset is, I will lay out the planks of the movement and if you care to know more you can begin your research by following the resources provided.

Just let me say this, if this reset is successful, the concepts of liberty and agency, western family and social order, free enterprise economy, religious freedom, the Bill of Rights, and governments worldwide as you know them, will not be recognizable 20 years from now. Your grand children will have no concept of the American way of life that you enjoy today.

Planks of the Great Reset

The following planks or objectives must be understood in the light of being implemented by global forces of either multi-national corporations, blocks of governments, global thought leaders, or a combination; the design being increased globalism.

  1. Global leaders must take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the Covid-19 crisis
  2. All recovery plans worldwide must include “green” solutions
  3. 24/7 biometrics surveillance is requires to protect the public
  4. Shaping the economic recovery into a new global solution
  5. Harnessing the Fourth Industrial Revolution
  6. Strengthening regional development
  7. Revitalizing global cooperation
  8. Developing sustainable business models (forced green and surveillance models)
  9. Restoring the health of the environment
  10. Redesigning social contracts, skills and jobs

A comparison of these planks to the 10 Communism Manifesto planks is very instructive. Fear is False Evidence Appearing Real, while this kind of information can be scary, if you will but inform yourselves and find ways to block its development, concerned and determined citizens can make all the difference.

It was Margret Mead who said “”Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” While she would have likely been in favor of the Great Reset, nevertheless, her quote is true and goes both ways.

There are those who would take your liberty and implement global surveillance to wield power over humanity by shear force of will. But can you see a world wherein lovers of liberty–by shear force of will–demand and take back their liberty, their right to a free economy, their right to freedom of religion, and the right to work and raise a family as they see fit?

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke (in a letter addressed to Thomas Mercer).

That’s the short version, attributed to Burke. A longer version reads as follows:

Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength. Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable. Where men are not acquainted with each other’s principles, nor experienced in each other’s talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy.

In a connection, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the public. No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

–Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents 82-83 (1770) in: Select Works of Edmund Burke, vol. 1, p. 146 (Liberty Fund ed. 1999).

The Great Reset Resources

2020 World Economic Forum Great Reset Highlights (5 min)

Explaining The Great Reset (40 min)

What is “The Great Reset” & Why are People So Worried About It? (17 min)

The World After Coronavirus, Yuval Noah Harari (article)

COVID-19: The Great Reset, Klaus Schwab (book)

Breaking Down the Global Elite’s ‘Great Reset’ Master Plan (article)

A House Divided Can Not Stand

The recent legal action by Texas maybe the most important Supreme Court case since the legal battle leading up to the United States Civil War of 1861. Not since that time has this nation been so divided, not since that time have we as a people been so ideologically polarized.

What follows are 6 pages of opening statements of the Texas suit against the swing states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. This suit is being encouraged by at least 17 other states and President Trump and being opposed by at least 22 states.

If there was ever a time to study and research current events, NOW is that time.

No. ______, Original

In the Supreme Court of the United States

STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Defendants.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAY

Pursuant to S.Ct. Rules 21, 23, and 17.2 and pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 65, the State of Texas (“Plaintiff State”) respectfully moves this Court to enter an administrative stay and temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin the States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Defendant States”) and all of their agents, officers, presidential electors, and others acting in concert from taking action to certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action—including without limitation participating in the electoral college or voting for a presidential candidate—until further order of this Court, and to preliminarily enjoin and to stay such actions pending the final resolution of this action on the merits.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Lawful elections are the heart of our freedoms. “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 10 (1964). Trust in the integrity of that process is the glue that binds our citizenry and the States in this Union.

Elections face the competing goals of maximizing and counting lawful votes but minimizing and excluding unlawful ones. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554-55 (1964); Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 103 (2000) (“the votes eligible for inclusion in the certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal requirements”) (“Bush II”); compare 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(1)-(2) (2018) with id. § 20501(b)(3)-(4). Moreover, “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 555. Reviewing election results requires not only counting lawful votes but also eliminating unlawful ones.

It is an understatement to say that 2020 was not a good year. In addition to a divided and partisan national mood, the country faced the COVID-19 pandemic. Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4; id. art. II, § 1, cl. 2.

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.

Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards, see Bush II, 531 U.S. at 103-05, and executive branch government officials cannot subvert these constitutional requirements, no matter their stated intent. For presidential elections, each State must appoint its Electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution, specifically the Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and the elections upon which such appointment is based. 1

Constitutional Background

The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its Presidential Electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (emphasis added); cf. id. art. I, § 4 (similar for time, place, and manner of federal legislative elections). “[T]he state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary,” Bush II, 531 U.S. at 104 (emphasis added), and sufficiently federal for this Court’s review. Bush v. Palm Beach Cty. Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 76 (2000) (“Bush I”). This textual feature of our Constitution was adopted to ensure the integrity of the presidential selection process: “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.” FEDERALIST NO. 68 (Alexander Hamilton). When a State conducts a popular election to appoint electors, the State must comply with all constitutional requirements. Bush II, 531 U.S. at 104. When a State fails to conduct a valid election—for any reason—”the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.” 3 U.S.C. § 2 (emphasis added).

Defendant States’ Violations of Electors Clause

As set forth in the Complaint, executive and judicial officials made significant changes to the legislatively defined election laws in the Defendant States. See Compl. at ¶¶ 29-134. Taken together, these non-legislative changes did away with statutory ballot-security measures for absentee and mail-in ballots such as signature verification, witness requirements, and statutorily authorized secure ballot drop-off locations.

Citing the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant States gutted the safeguards for absentee ballots through non-legislative actions, despite knowledge that absentee ballots are “the largest source of potential voter fraud,” BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN U.S. ELECTIONS: REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM, at 46 (Sept. 2005) (hereinafter, “CARTER-BAKER”), which is magnified when absentee balloting is shorn of ballot-integrity measures such as signature verification, witness requirements, or outer-envelope protections, or when absentee ballots are processed and tabulated without bipartisan observation by poll watchers.

Factual Background

Without Defendant States’ combined 72 electoral votes, President Trump presumably has 232 electoral votes, and former Vice President Biden presumably has 234. Thus, Defendant States’ electors will determine the outcome of the election. Alternatively, if Defendant States are unable to certify 37 or more electors, neither candidate will have a majority in the Electoral College, in which case the election would devolve to the U.S. House of Representatives under the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

1 Subject to override by Congress, State legislatures have the exclusive power to regulate the time, place, and manner for electing Members of Congress, see U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, which is distinct from legislatures’ exclusive and plenary authority on the appointment of presidential electors. When non-legislative actors purport to set State election law for presidential elections, they violate both the Elections Clause and the Electors Clause.

Link To Full Text

What is Your Political Philosophy? Part One

Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat, Social Liberal or Classical Liberal, Libertarian or Anarchist? What political philosophy do you follow and does it really matter?

This is an important discussion because it is possible to promote or support a way of thinking that doesn’t actually align with a person’s moral code. And what if a person doesn’t have a defined moral code? Then they are very easily swayed by the prevailing opinion or social media.

Words have meaning and ideas have consequences and as a result, what we do and agree to over the next 12 months will set the stage for how our nation functions for the next decade or more. My primary purpose for writing this is to help us all make better and more informed personal and political decisions.

This series of blogs will demonstrate different political philosophies with the desired end result of helping one to clarify a personal moral code and to determine which philosophy best fits that moral code.

To talk about political philosophy, first we need a good working definition of philosophy:

Philosophy, done well, should be a rigorous, structured, sequential conversation (with others or oneself) that is both collaborative and oppositional, that attempts to explore, explain and justify the
structure and content of our thoughts in response to perceived problems and puzzles about reality, knowledge, value and meaning. Philosophy employs a method/process (more often than not ongoing) of reflection, reasoning and re-evaluation, by employing the appropriate intellectual
virtues or excellences, in order to make good, though provisional judgements about what seems possibly (metaphysically) true, possibly (morally) right, and (logically) coherent. The aim is to improve our understanding (also understanding what we don’t understand) of: the world, ourselves, our experiences and other people, by refining how we think about those things. The hope is that by doing philosophy we learn to think better, to act more wisely, and thereby help to improve the quality of all our lives.

This is perhaps the best general definition I have found and it immediately brings up a couple of issues regarding how the average person uses the word “philosophy” today. First, we are probably using the term “philosophy” incorrectly. When we say “political philosophy,” I think we actually mean ideology: A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Most people I think, use the idea of “philosophy” as more of a code of conduct than a system of learning. The reason I say this is how often I have heard people use their “philosophy” to defend actions or a position; “because I’m a democrat” or “because we are a progressive society,” or “because my dad was a republican.” In general we see very little “thinking” or trying to evaluate the merits of one ideology over another. As you have undoubtedly seen or experienced, political philosophies or ideologies are more often used in political battle than intellectual comparison.

As mentioned above, the process of philosophy is a rigorous and structured process, it takes time to evaluate what others are actually saying and what the consequences are of acting on those ideas. It takes time and serious energy to ferret out the facts and shrug off all the non-facts in our information age. It takes time and concerted effort to evaluate why you feel the way you do about certain ideas and concepts. It is highly rewarding and clarifying to take the time and effort to be philosophical, but alas, in our fast paced world, few ever experience this level of enlightenment.

Perhaps the most valuable thing I learned during my college experience was the concept of ideologue vs truth seeking. My mentor spend significant time on this concept, explaining that we are either ideologues–hiding behind a set of ideas, disregarding anything that does not easily fit into that orbit–or a truth seeker or philosopher–honestly evaluating new ideas and trying hard not to dismiss them immediately if they seem not to fit at first blush. In “philosophical fairness,” one must at least give the new idea a full and unbiased hearing before dismissing it.

The idea of philosophy is that one tries to approach something like politics with an open mind and take each strand of reason or principle or idea and follow it to its conclusion and then determine if that gives us the best results regarding what we understand as what’s best for ourselves or humanity.

But most people rarely if ever experience this process. It is all too common for the vast majority of Americans to never engage in such a philosophical pursuit anytime during their lives. Those Americans who are politically active, (and I am defining this on a spectrum of anywhere from staying up to date by reading/watching current affairs to participating in rallies and peaceful protests to working on political campaigns) generally have not come to their convictions through philosophical analysis but are simply following a party or an ideologue and castigating all other ideologies without having the benefit of fully researching either the one they are following or the one they are against.

It is not common nor is it taught in public education to systematically and philosophically study out these issues by reflection, reasoning, and re-evaluating our position with absolute honesty. We as a nation do not have a common eschatology nor do we, I think, consciously operate from such a high ground, rather most Americans make political decisions based on their feelings with very few facts.

In my own political experience, which did not actually begin until I was 28 years old, I began to notice some differences between what people said they believed in and their actions, mostly by seeing this phenomena in myself. During this time, I also really came to grips with the fact that I had deeply embraced conservatism based on my emotional response rather an in-depth comparative analysis of all the mainstream ideologies. It wasn’t until my mid 30’s that I seriously attempted to engage in philosophy to determine what is right and best for humanity.

What follows over the next couple of blogs is a summary breakdown of a number of political philosophies or ideologies. It is my hope that in this very divisive time, that we can take a stand for what we believe is true, based on an honest philosophical analysis, on an educated not emotional evaluation of the facts. This will make us more informed and when necessary, more tolerant, and help us to be conscientious citizens so that when we take that stand and put our foot down, we are doing so on the solid ground of honest intellectual prowess.

America at a Crossroads

The modern threat of communism was explained in detail during the first half of the 20th century by the likes of Eric Vogelin, G.K. Chesterton, Friedrich Hayek, and C.S Lewis and dramatically displayed in works such as Brave New World (1932), Anthem (1938), Animal Farm (1945), Nineteen-Eighty-Four (1949), etc.

In 1956, James Michener chronicled the horrific acts of retaliation against the Hungarian people by the Soviet Union in his globally acclaimed book, The Bridge at Andau. Perhaps the most notable anti-communist voice during the 1970s was that of Russian dissident Alexandr Solzhenitsyn echoed by a chorus of others including Erza T. Benson, Larry Abraham, President Ronald Reagan, Gary Allen, Cleon Skousen, etc.

In 2003, Jung Chang published her account of living under communism entitled Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China. I found this book to be an excellent tool to explain the horrors of communism to Millennial and Gen Z students, I highly recommend reading this book.

Today this threat is as real as it has every been with the single difference that rather than communism being a developing threat to liberty, socialism/communism is now a part of the very fabric of American life. For those of you who may be thinking that this is a stretch, I challenge you to compare the Antifa and BLM riots (and lack of intervention by elected officials) to the 1966-1976 Chinese Culture Revolution.

Below is a Nov. 25th editorial piece from the Epoch Times:

America’s Critical Point in Time

From its founding up to the present, the United States of America has represented a beacon of light that has shone forth, with religious freedom and freedom of speech not witnessed in other parts of the world.

What many have failed to realize, however, is that over the past several decades, this great nation has slowly been infiltrated by the communist specter.

Amid credible allegations of voter fraud and election irregularities, America is now on the brink of falling into the communist abyss.

The communist specter gave rise to the regimes in the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and China. Its ideology of totalitarianism seeks control over, rather than the flourishing of, mankind.

The Squad – Freshman (2018) Congresswomen promote marxist policies and laws.

Its gradual takeover of the West has been carried out in broad daylight. As French poet Charles Baudelaire wrote back in 1864, the “greatest trick of the Devil” is to persuade you that he doesn’t exist.

During the Cold War, the world was divided between two military and political camps. Yet, while their social systems appeared to be diametrically opposed, the same process was taking place on both sides, in different forms.

Many revisionist Western-style communists, socialists, Fabianists, liberals, and progressives publicly rejected the Soviet and Chinese models while their efforts led society on a path toward a social structure no different from those of the Soviet Union and China. And so it has been for much of the Western world.

The West was relieved at the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union just a few short years later.

The specter of communism, however, never died.

It continued to thrive in China, the world’s most populous nation. And while the Cold War ended, the international communist movement never ceased its efforts to achieve its global goal of communist domination.

While communist regimes have continued with their rigid dictatorships, party politics in free societies have come to a point of crisis. Communism has exploited loopholes in the legal and political systems of democratic nations by manipulating major political parties.

This decades-long effort has now nearly succeeded.

Socialism

Socialism has always been part of Marxism and the international communist movement. As Vladimir Lenin stated, “The goal of socialism is communism.” In democratic states, socialism slowly eats away at people’s freedoms through legislation.

In the West, the process of establishing a socialist system takes decades or generations, leaving people gradually numb, oblivious, and accustomed to socialism. The endgame of socialist movements implemented gradually and through “legal” means is no different from that of their violent counterparts.

Socialism inevitably undergoes a transition to communism, with people continually stripped of their rights until what remains is a tyrannical, authoritarian regime.

Socialism uses the idea of guaranteeing equality of outcome through legislation, but this seemingly noble goal goes against nature. Under normal circumstances, people of all kinds naturally vary in their religious beliefs, moral standards, cultural literacy, educational backgrounds, intelligence, fortitude, diligence, sense of responsibility, aggressiveness, innovation, entrepreneurship, and more.

In actuality, socialism’s pursuit of equality drags down morality and deprives people of the freedom to incline toward goodness.

Socialism uses “political correctness” to attack basic moral discernment and artificially force everyone to be the same. This has come along with the legalization and normalization of all manner of anti-theist and profane speech, sexual perversions, demonic art, pornography, gambling, and drug use.

The result is a kind of reverse discrimination against those who believe in God and aspire to moral elevation, with the goal of marginalizing and eventually getting rid of them.

Leftist and other pernicious agendas have been able to acquire so much mainstream influence in Western countries largely due to the help of mass media. In countries run by communist regimes, all outlets are subject to state censorship, if not directly controlled by the communist party. Elsewhere, the media has been brought under the sway of financial and partisan bias. Honest reporting and discourse are buried by an avalanche of sensationalism, political virtue-signaling, and outright fake news.

All around the world, socialist and communist movements have taken advantage of economic unrest and the pandemic to edge themselves into positions of influence, with the eventual goal of overthrowing the existing social order.

We are now seeing the same playing out in America.

The United States has gone far along with the socialist ideology. Mainstream media champion the ideas of equality and follow the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) attacks on America. Our younger generations have come to view socialism favorably and are among the most fevered in taking part in protests and riots aimed at destroying our cultural heritage.

Meanwhile, society at large has come to support the idea that the government should provide health care, education, and perhaps eventually the cost of living. Knowingly and unknowingly, we are gradually trading our freedoms for a system that controls people.

Socialism and communism claim full ownership over all property and human beings. Socialism demands people give up their belief in God and instead take the state as God.

The United States, the place founded on a fundamental belief in freedom, has become a country where freedom gets betrayed. This has now come to a head with the 2020 election and credible allegations of voter fraud.

The nation that stands to gain the most from this is China, where the CCP has ruled brutally for more than 70 years, resulting in the unnatural deaths of at least 65 million people.

For communist China, the United States has always stood in the way of the communists’ objective of global control. The communist regime’s goal has always been to overthrow the United States and become the dominant power in the world.

For decades, it has worked toward this objective, and it is now close to attaining it.

Its methods of subversion are sophisticated and run deep. FBI Director Christopher Wray said in July that the agency has nearly 2,500 open counterintelligence investigations related to China and that the agency opens a new one about every 10 hours.

China’s rise, however, was halted and even reversed under the Trump administration, which recognized the mortal threat of the CCP to the United States. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described the CCP as the “central threat of our times.” A nationwide effort has been underway to rid the United States of the CCP’s influence, as well as counter the Party’s aggression overseas. Needless to say, the Chinese communist regime stands to gain a lot from an end to the Trump presidency.

A Battle Between Good and Evil

Communism teaches people to replace belief in God with atheism and materialism.

As a consequence, in today’s world, the criteria for discerning good and evil have been inverted. Righteousness is cast as wickedness and vice as compassion.

By the start of the 20th century, atheistic and anti-traditional thought had begun to gradually seep into school curricula, facilitated by leftist pedagogical experts who had infiltrated academia and held sway over educational policy.

The public is inculcated with a modern consciousness and mobilized to overpower the minority of people who stubbornly hold to tradition. Intellectuals levy heavy criticism of folk cultures around the world, fostering narrow-minded prejudice among their undiscerning audiences. The concepts of critical and creative thinking are abused to pit those of the younger generation against authority, preventing them from absorbing the knowledge and wisdom of traditional culture.

In communist countries, after the bearers of traditional culture were slaughtered, the bulk of the population was indoctrinated to participate in revolution. After the CCP seized power, it took 25 years to nurture a generation of “wolf cubs,” a Chinese term for those who grew up under communism and were indoctrinated to hate and kill class enemies. They were encouraged to fight, smash, rob, and burn indiscriminately.

Epoch Times Photo
Communist Party cadres hang a placard on the neck of a Chinese man during the Cultural Revolution in 1966. The words on the placard states the man’s name and accuse him of being a member of the “black class.” (Public Domain)

The CCP actively cultivates murderous sentiment. During the Cultural Revolution, teenage girls readily beat their teachers to death as part of Mao’s ideological crusade.

In the West, communist parties proudly harken back to the experiences of the French Revolution and the Paris Commune. Every revolution and insurrection has been introduced by mobs that had no scruples, no shame, and no compassion.

Communism is a scourge on humanity. Its goal is the destruction of mankind, and its arrangements are meticulous and specific.

Human civilization, meanwhile, was transmitted to man by the divine. If humans destroy their culture and tradition, and if the morality of society collapses, then they will fail to understand the divine.

We can break through the communist specter’s attempt at destruction by actively rejecting its influence and instead following the divine, restoring our traditions, and elevating morality.

This is an era of both despair and hope.

This article was written in part based on the special editorial series “How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World.” To read the series, click here.

Why the 12th Amendment?

One possible outcome of this historic election could be an Electoral College impasse that would then move the choosing of the president to the US legislature.

As this potential reality continues to grow, a review of the 12th Amendment is necessary to avoid insecurity of the citizenry. Here is the process:

Step One – On the Tuesday after the first Monday of November, registered state citizens vote for political party to represent the state.

Step Two – Before December 14, State government certifies the votes and selects Electors of the Electoral College to represent the state based on the will of the people as demonstrated by the popular vote.

Step Three – On December 14, Electors cast two votes each, one for president and one for vice president.

Step Four – Electoral College creates list of all candidates voted for by Electors and number of votes for each and sends it to the President of the Senate.

Step Five – Before both houses of congress, the President of the Senate opens and reads the votes cast for president and vice president. The candidates with the majority of votes (270 or greater) will be the next president and vice president.

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Much of the debate over the value of the Electoral College has been fueled by the insistence that America is a “democracy” and that the popular vote is all that matters.

Remember, from the 1787 Constitutional Convention to now, the intent of the framers was that both the populace and the state governments be represented fairly. That is why originally the House of Representatives was selected by popular vote, but the Senate was appointed by the state legislatures (changes to popular vote by the 17th amendment). Simple “one vote per person” is democracy and only works in small governments as defined by James Madison: “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.” These societies, Madison contended “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention.” 

To decrease the frequency of these spectacles and ensure that the people and state governments were fairly represented, the system of the Electoral College was wisely adopted. I must again point out that from a perspective of “Federalism” (system established by the Constitution) states must be represented as well as population.

To wrap up, if no candidate has a clear majority of electoral votes (270), the process will devolve to the US House and Senate, and each state will have one vote in each body to answer to the question of the next president and vice president.

For better understanding I recommend these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIPt0oZuYFU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTbvYGH_Hiw