Posted on 06/24/2011 7:57:17 AM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
Because they're suicidal? Because they're really useful idiots for the 'progressive agenda'? Could be either one. Time will tell.
Why Are Conservatives Supporting the National Popular Vote?
Supreme ignorance...
Riiiiiiggghhhhtt....I'm sure the good people of Wyoming, North Dakota, et al will be just thrilled at the jump in campaign activity. If you wrote this, you are delusional.
No true conservative would support this. Why? Because we tend to conserve institutions.
Going the NPV route would result in the political equivalent of "free beer" to New York, California, and a couple of other large states constituting an electoral majority. Can you not see that?
We don’t need a “magic wand” change to the process.
The underlying fundamental is the character and morals of the population. The more work that is done towards promoting a population of good character and morals, the more the voting process - even the current one - will result in candidates being elected who share the same good qualities.
I would support an amendment to allocate EVs by Congressional District (plus awarding the 2 senate seats by overall state winner) or by county.
Not the NPV though.
Because they are idiots. No one who calls himself "conservative" should support NPV because NPV was never the law of the land when it came to electing Presidents. Ever.
0bama is in serious trouble. The Democrats always throw out NPV as a "solution" to a "problem" (which of course doesn't exist) whenever they need helpful fraud in major cities to negate red state voters.
They are “cocktail circuit Republicans”
If they truly want to do this, allocate by Congressional district or County.
This way, at least some semblance of conservatives in CA, or, to be fair, liberals in Texas, can have their votes count.
Don’t they realize that four liberal states would then control the country? It was fun explaining the electoral college to my Aussie mates.
because most conservatives want the laws the libs passed repealed, and want to put in their own laws on the opposite side of the political spectrum...either way, repression is the result...strict constitutionalism is the only way to go...
Mob rule has always been a bad idea. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.
Going the NPV route would result in the political equivalent of "free beer" to New York, California, and a couple of other large states constituting an electoral majority. Can you not see that?
That's simply untrue. It presumes that everyone in those areas votes the same way, which they don't. It also presumes that if you somehow convinced everyone in those areas to vote the same way you'd have a national majority, which you wouldn't. I'll spare you the cut and paste routine. Check out the FAQ page on nationalpopularvote(dot)com. If you can dispute their numbers, more power to you.
To your point about conserving institutions, I would make two notes. First, no institution is threatened by the NPV state compact. But even if it was, argument from tradition is not an argument. We don't conserve institutions merely because they exist. We conserve them when they serve a rational purpose. This brings us back to the argument we should be having, which is whether the NPV compact has merit as policy.
Anybody else see the supreme irony of that?
The real problem here is not merely that NPV gives disproportionate representation to the big population centers. It might even be possible to make a rational argument for that but only — and here is the real issue — if we intend to jettison the federal system and replace it with an even larger, more powerful, central government. That is the real agenda of the left. Centralized consolidation of power. NPV is just one of the means to achieve it.
The ultimate result would be to vastly extend the reach of vote fraud in the heavily populated blue states. That’s why the leftists are pushing the idea.
It might sound appealing that the winner of the national popular vote wins the election.
However, in a very close election, it’s not always clear who that is.
On election night 2000, Bush was ahead by about a million popular votes nationwide.
By the Wednesday afternoon, the day after election day, Gore was ahead nationwide by about 500,000 popular votes. That’s a razor thin margin, percentagewise, over the whole country.
In the 2000 election, a national recount would have been needed to verify who really won the national popular vote. Until that is done, you couldn’t even get to the electoral vote under these NPV proposals.
Ditto in 1960, Kennedy vs. Nixon. Officially Kennedy won the popular vote by about 100,000+ votes nationwide. But there too, if such a system were in place then, you would need a national recount. Who is going to supervise that, who would pay for that?
In Washington three counties (King, Pierce, and Snohomish) control the whole state. In King county there are more lawyers than in the whole country of Japan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.