Skip to comments.Scheme To Bypass Electoral College Quietly Advances
Posted on 05/16/2014 9:33:46 PM PDT by Ray76
With little fanfare and nearly no national media attention, the National Popular Vote effort is now 61 percent of the way toward its goal of legally bypassing the Electoral College established in the U.S. Constitution.
The NPV campaign seeks to obtain the consent of the majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College to award electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of the popular vote in each state.
The group, the Center for Voting and Democracy, received original seed money in 1997 from the Joyce Foundation, a nonprofit that boasted President Obama served on its board at the time of the grant. Obama was a board member from July 1994 until December 2002.
The NPV is run by individuals with a history of support for the Democratic Party, KleinOnline found.
It is partnered with FairVote, a project of the Soros-funded Center for Voting and Democracy that advocates for a national popular vote for president.
Soros Open Society Institute funds the Center for Voting and Democracy, where FairVote is based.
The centers website notes the group was kick-started in 1997 with two grants one from the Open Society and another from the Joyce Foundation.
With Obama on its board, the Joyce Foundation also funded the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute; the National Council of La Raza and Physicians for Social Responsibility, among numerous radical groups.
Meanwhile, the NPV leadership is comprised of Democratic Party supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at kleinonline.wnd.com ...
If the elites behind this thought it would help TEA Party candidates, the effort would instantly come to a halt.
Presidential Election Popular Votes 1940-2012
Considering the amount of ire for the Dems by the public, what happens when conservative Pubbies (or even GOP-E) win the popular vote?
What will they do then? Go back to the electoral college?
That is an interesting table.
Demorats are counting on influx of welfare seeking 3rd world immigrants to make them a permanent majority.
AND .. IN CASE YOU HAVEN’T NOTICED .. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THE DEMS WANT AMNESTY .. THEY WILL NEED ALL THOSE VOTES IN ORDER TO WIN THE ELECTION IN 2016.
IF THEY MANAGE TO PULL IT OFF .. IT WILL FINISH THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA.
OR .... IT WILL START A CIVIL WAR (WHICH IS WHAT I THINK OBAMA WANTS); HE WILL DECLARE MARTIAL LAW AND ALL GOVT WILL BE SUSPENDED.
AMERICA BETTER WAKE UP .. WE’RE ALMOST OUT OF TIME.
Do those that advocate the popular vote scheme expect conservative states to just accept it without contemplation of separation?
The NPV is an underhanded assault calculated to obviate a Constitutional provision
We’re about two elections away from a Mexican president. Sometimes I’m glad I’m old....
Although I am much younger than you, I’m glad to be old enough that when this is complete, I will probably be dead as well.
Why are these states so quick to yield their sovereignty?
AND .. IN CASE YOU HAVENT NOTICED .. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THE DEMS WANT AMNESTY .. THEY WILL NEED ALL THOSE VOTES IN ORDER TO WIN THE ELECTION IN 2016.
IF THEY MANAGE TO PULL IT OFF .. IT WILL FINISH THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA.
All I have to say is when you are right you are right.
So they still have not forgiven Republicans for not letting Gore steal the election in 2000.
Many constitutional scholars find that the NPV Compact probably is unconstitutional. Here are some links:
Basically, the arguments against the NPV are that it violates the Compact Clause of the Constitution, it may violate the Voting Rights Act, and it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
the winners are big population centers and losers are medium and small states.
in essence it makes all states losers except for about six.
Having a partisan president select a partisan head of the Justice Department means the executive branch can get away with just about anything, the 2/3rds of the Senate conviction standard being a very high bar.
In the run up to the 2000 election the democrats were crying that if Bush won the popular vote it wouldn’t matter as long as Gore won the electoral vote. Well, the opposite happened and they changed their tune.
If anything, they are doing the Right a favor by painting themselves as targets when action needs to be taken.
Yes, and at that time Texas and the states sympathetic to it will have to de-annex the rest of the USA thereby causing a CWII.
In the meantime, Texas will never secede, but they might ignore/suspend the unconstitutional federal government dictates in Texas in order to govern Texas as we see fit.
If Obama and his administration can ignore the Constitution, then we can ignore them and lawfully uphold the Constitution.
The whole point of the Electoral College was to allow a way to elect a president that the people didn’t vote for if the people ever made what the overlords felt was an incorrect decision.
The majority of the population of the US lives in democrat controlled states. That’s why they want to pass this law. It would make republicans extinct.
The next day. I am hoping they get this through and a republican wins the popular vote the next election.
I'd love to find a way to make religion non-partisan. Way too many points of view, don'cha think.
For that matter, I'd like to make entering a traffic rotary (roundabout for you Anglophiles) non-partisan, but everyone else seems to think they got there first.
Another scheme from scheming socialists? Adios, republic.
a Republic madam, if you can keep it. Benjamin Franklin recognized the threat posed to a Representative Republic by partisan politics, special interests, and unrestrained growth of the central (Federal) government. The Constitution imposed heavy restrictions upon the three separate and equal branches of government and left the fabric of authority for legislation in the hands of the several individual states protected by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
Amnesty is critical to the future of the Democratic party because the birthrate in Red States is significantly higher than in Blue States.
Is it any surprise that bible-believeing Christians have more children on average than abortion-obsessed gay marriage fanatics?
Clearly Soros and the other sponsors of this plan intend to flood the USA with Left-leaning immigrants and permanently take the reigns of government before America’s liberals bugger and abort themselves into oblivion.
How could this pass Constitutional muster?
1) It will nullify the votes of a MAJORITY of some States’ voters, deny the the right to vote to millions of citizens.
2) It allows OTHER States to select the electors for your State. Constitution does not allow that.
3) Illegal voting in one State could throw an election. Cheating would be rampant and competitive.
No way in hell will this Democrat scheme stand.
No Constitution, no peace.
I don’t know why these states even bother with this nonsense. Almost every state that has adopted this NPV measure was already a strong “blue” state, so the stronger likelihood would be that they’d be changing their votes from “blue” candidates to “red” candidates.
“The winners are big population centers and losers are medium and small states. In essence it makes all states losers except for about six.”
Yup. Which is why I think that if any state actually decides to secede, it will be a small state. While I’m not particularly in favor of secession, it makes more sense for a small state that has little representation in the larger whole anyway.
I dont know why these states even bother with this nonsense.
The fact that so much money is being poured into this scheme indicates that someone thinks it possible that in the future the political desires of a small collection of states with large population centers (i.e. California, NY, Massachusetts) will be different from the political desires of a larger collection of States with less people (i.e. the States that actually grow our food and produce things.).
I think you’re right: Texas will not secede. It’s politicians, while talking the talk, will not actually do the deed. More importantly, there is a large and growing presence of foreign nationals in Texas who would not see it as in their interest.
I do think, however, that one or more states will decide to exit within say 20 years. There are some smaller states that will simply see it in their best interests. I don’t necessarily agree, but I do see that coming.
Unless something is done to stem the tide of illegals Texas will soon become a microcosm of the nation; Houston and Dallas will be highly populated Democrat strongholds who will take all the power away from conservatives throughout the rest of the state.
One of the Left’s primary objectives for this decade is to turn Texas blue.
I think that's obviously the case right now. The population centers are also the welfare pits of the country. They get more from the government than they pay out in taxes. It would be electoral slavery for the periphery if this regime ever came to pass.
“One of the Lefts primary objectives for this decade is to turn Texas blue.”
While several Texans would hotly disagree with me, I think there is a pretty fair chance of that happening.
“It would be electoral slavery for the periphery if this regime ever came to pass.”
It would just exacerbate the existing electoral slavery that already exists. Things are already beginning to look eerily like the political scenario from the Hunger Games trilogy.
That was my first thought.
I’d guess they think they can sneak it through under the noses of the mind numbed sheeple.
The Democrats also learned that if they can manufacture votes in blue states, which would not be necessary in the current electoral college process as they would have won the state anyway, they can offset actual votes in red states. Recalling the Florida fiasco - imagine a nationwide close vote (anything less than 1.5 million) and the nationwide recounts - every precinct in the country could be manufacturing or eliminating votes.
The states that have adopted this "National Popular Vote" measure are almost all deep-blue states that would be electing Democrats anyway. So the real risk for them is that they end up changing their votes from Democrat to Republican, not vice versa.
Let's take one NPV state -- New York, for example -- and see how this plays out. Here are the four potential scenarios in a presidential election:
Scenario #1: Democrat wins national electoral vote (EV) and wins national popular vote (PV)
Scenario #2: Democrat wins EV and loses PV
Scenario #3: Republican wins EV and wins PV
Scenario #4: Republican wins EV and loses PV
For all practical purposes, the NPV scheme only comes into play in Scenarios #2 and #4. Yes, it can happen under Scenarios #1 and #3 but in those two cases it would be completely inconsequential for any state because the change in that state's electoral votes will not change the outcome of the election.
But just for the sake of this analysis, let's look at how each scenario would play out for New York:
Scenario #1 ... I don't think there will ever be a scenario where a Democratic candidate wins both the national electoral vote and the national popular vote, but loses New York. In the outlandish scenario where something like this might occur, New York changes its electoral vote from Republican to Democrat -- which has no impact on the election results.
Scenario #2 ... This is the worst thing that could happen to New York under a National Popular Vote scenario. In this case, New York would have cast many electoral votes for the Democratic candidate who won the national electoral vote, but would have to change the state's EV from Democrat to Republican -- and might even swing the presidential election in favor of a Republican candidate who lost New York's popular vote by a wide margin!
Scenario #3 ... This one might happen with some frequency, but like Scenario #1, it has no bearing on the election results. If the NPV rule had been in place in 2004, for example, New York would have given its electoral votes to George W. Bush even though John Kerry won New York's popular vote by a wide margin. But Bush won even without New York, so it makes no difference other than to turn a close Republican victory into an electoral college landslide.
Scenario #4 ... This is exactly what happened in 2000, but it's of no consequence in a deep blue state like New York. Al Gore won New York by a wide margin, so New York's electoral votes had been cast for him anyway. Like Scenario #2, this one can actually result in a state changing its electoral vote from one candidate to the other, and changing the outcome of a presidential election as a result. But for a state like New York, it's highly unlikely that a Republican candidate could lose the national popular vote and yet win the popular vote in New York.
So as I go through these, the scenario that is most likely to occur in a way that requires New York to change its electoral votes in a way that changes the outcome of a presidential election is Scenario #2. The problem for New Yorkers is that they'll end up casting electoral votes for the Republican candidate.
This is why I find it baffling that these "deep blue" states would even consider this National Popular Vote idiocy. In fact, if Scenario #2 were to unfold in New York there would be court challenges attempting to overturn that state law -- even if it took until the end of time.
If your scenario were to happen (that of NY having to switch from communistic (er socialist) to republican BECAUSE of this inter-state agreement, then NY would simply refuse to follow the NPV agreement!
However, if OH were to vote “red” in the election, but PA and IL and NY voted “blue” then MA, PA, NY, IL and CA WOULD combine to “force” / “bribe” / “influence” Ohio’s electors to vote BLUE because of this agreement!
The socialist/communists ONLY follow “agreements” and “the law” WHEN IT AGREES WITH THEIR NEEDS!
The fact that Barack Obama and George Soros are backing this initiative proves that there isn’t any viable scenario where the NPV would benefit a Republican. I don’t think highly of either of those two gentlemen, but I can’t question their political acumen.
I see the National Popular Vote as being directly linked to the push to grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens. With the NPV it wouldn’t even matter where these new Democrat voters lived. Half of them could be in Texas and swing the nation’s popular vote to the Democrat candidate, even if Texas itself gave the Republican candidate its majority.
Although it seems unlikely I would expect that if any near-term prospects of Amnesty were eliminated this initiative would also be put on hold.
That points to a bigger problem with these multi-state NPV agreements. They are probably unenforceable. If one state decides to unilaterally violate the terms of the agreement, then I don’t see what kind of recourse another state might have to enforce it.
I think the NPV is something that grew out of the post-2000 outrage over Al Gore's loss and has faded considerably over time. The fact that New York State just got on board (New York State hasn't been at the forefront of anything in decades) gives some credence to this.
1. Seems it would encourage a proliferation of 3rd parties.
2. It appears to be contrary to the purpose statement of the US Constitution which is to guarantee to the people a ‘republican’ form of government.
3. Other inconsistencies with the constitution should make it possible for smaller states to take this to the Supreme Court. For example, the Constitution doesn’t seem to give the state legislatures the authority to determine the vote of the elector: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. “
4. This makes it possible for a coalition of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Jersey to run the nation. 11 States could run the nation. We say, “impossible”. But, if it becomes clear to a potential majority that they could ALWAYS have what they wanted, then it is entirely possible.
That points to a bigger problem with these multi-state NPV agreements. They are probably unenforceable. If one state decides to unilaterally violate the terms of the agreement, then I dont see what kind of recourse another state might have to enforce it.
“Coerce” by funding promises or “back-door” projects and bribes from the dictatorship around the waffling state? Certainly! And, with the “NPV agreement” inpalce, a GROUP of “NPV electors INSIDE that state can “change their minds” as required (because of the NPV agreement offers an excuse) and vote blue “because the Popular Vote demands it!”
Thus, Pennsylvania now is a 100% block vote in the Electoral Collage. Probably wrongly so because its STUPID governor vetoed and proportional vote law based on political judgment and “GrOPe” advice, but no matter now. So, a group of blue (communist) electors within PA CHANGES their vote from ‘promised red” to “voted blue” BECAUSE of this agreement.
Those 15 or 25 “blue electors” flip the Electoral College from republican to democratic.
They don't need an NPV agreement to do any of that. As you pointed out, these are all reliably "blue" states that have signed the agreement anyway.
Go back to my previous post with the scenarios I presented. Can you even imagine in your wildest dreams a scenario where a Democratic presidential candidate wins the national popular vote but doesn't carry New York or California?
“,,,It also enhances the influence of the millions of “red” voters in deep “blue” states.”
No it doesn’t, not if millions of Leftist immigrant voters have just been added to the roles.
Look at this from the a Leftist’s point of view. Most of the job growth in the USA is in the Red states, so that’s where a lot of immigrants will eventually end up. What good does it do to force the USA to absorb 11 million new Democrat voters if they are spread out in various Red States where they might not provide a majority in a presidential election? The NPV solves this problem - those 11 million voters will swing the presidential election, even if many of them live in states who give their electoral votes to the Republican candidate.
Recent years have provided a horrifying lesson in how important presidential elections can be.
This is exactly why this push for a "national popular vote" is silly and pointless. This coalition can already do this today under the current system.
Isn't this exactly how Barack Obama won in 2008 and 2012?
You’re lock-on, focused solely on NY or CA.
It is the OTHER states that would get affected BY IL and CA and NY and Mass! It is THOSE STATES that are vulnerable to the agreement’s manipulations and blue bias.
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.