Posted on 09/22/2010 7:48:28 AM PDT by Fury
And so the dominoes continue to fall. The D.C. Council yesterday approved the National Popular Vote plan that has been pending before several state legislatures. D.C.’s approval comes less than two months after Massachusetts approved the plan. Two procedural steps remain before NPV is officially enacted in D.C.: The mayor must sign the legislation and Congress has 30 days to review it. If these two hurdles are overcome, then D.C.’s approval will bring the total number of entities supporting the bill to seven: Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington. These six states and D.C. together hold 76 electoral votes. NPV goes into effect when states holding 270 electoral votes are committed to the pact.
As I have written before, it is also important to remember the three other state legislatures that approved the scheme but met with gubernatorial vetoes (California, Rhode Island, Vermont). A reasonable legal argument can be made that the gubernatorial vetoes are irrelevant. Thus, NPV may have as many as 138 electoral votes.
At its heart, NPV is a blatant strike at the Constitution. It tears apart a well-established institution that was admired by the Founding generation and that has served America successfully for centuries. Alexander Hamilton described its reception by the Founding generation, noting that “the mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system…which has escaped without severe censure.… I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”
Second, NPV achieves its objective only because its plan does an end-run around the constitutional amendment process. Even assuming that the Electoral College should be eliminated, respect for the Constitution demands that we go through the formal amendment process. If a direct-election system is to be implemented, it should be ratified by three-quarters of the states, as required by Article V.
The Council’s action gives constitutionalists in both parties an excellent opportunity to highlight their allegiance to the Constitution during this election season. Constitutionalists in the House and Senate should sponsor resolutions of disapproval if and when NPV is signed by D.C.’s mayor. Those congressmen who fail to defend the Electoral College — and thus our Constitution — should be held to account at the polls.
— Tara Ross is the author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.
NEW YORK IS GOING TO GO REPUBLICAN IN 2010 AND 2012
UPSTATE HAS HAD ENOUGH
This is unconstitutional. All their electoral votes should be disqualified should they adopt this tactic.
I prefer the district system. Whoever wins the majority in a congressional district, gets that districts electorial seat. If no majority, then a run off between the top two candidates 30 days later.
States can decide how their two electorial votes are handled but I would prefer a system where the candidate who wins the majority of DISTRICTS gets one electorial seat and the candidate who received the most votes in the state gets the other electorial seat.
From Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
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.
So, technically, this National Popular Vote plan is constitutional, since the states decide how to apportion the Electors. Technically, the states could have the Electors be chosen by the Governor or State Legislature, if it so chooses. I don't agree with it, but I can't see how it is unconstitutional.
The good news here is that these are mostly “blue” states — which means we may very well face a scenario down the road where a Republican candidate “loses” the popular vote in one of these states but wins the state because of this stupid approach to casting Electoral Votes. I don’t know of any “red” states that have proposals in place to enact the same idiocy.
From what I gather, NPV attempts to force electors to vote a particular way. I would imagine that while states are allowed to choose electors in a manner in which they see fit, they cannot compel those electors to vote in a particular manner.
Besides, if some GOP candidate does win the popular vote with this law in place, I guarantee NPV will be found to be unconstitutional on some unforseen technicality.
They are supposed to appoint Electors, not apportion them. I don’t see how they can get away with telling the Electors how they are supposed to vote.
If I lived in Illinois, for example, and had a second home in another state (let's say Ohio for the sake of this discussion), I'd simply register to vote in the other state (Ohio). That way my vote will be counted towards Ohio's electoral vote -- and since Ohio doesn't have one of these stupid "national popular vote" laws in place, that electoral vote would be based entirely on Ohio's own vote count.
At the same time, my vote would also count towards the "national popular vote" that serves as the basis for Illinois' electoral vote -- regardless of which candidate the people of Illinois voted for!
Do the people who support these laws even think about the consequences of their idiocy?
So, I am still not seeing a constitutional difference.
See reply 11.
To further reinforce my previous point, just take this information and go back to the 2004 election results.
If these stupid "NPV" laws had been in place in these six states and the District of Columbia in 2004, then George W. Bush would have gotten 76 electoral votes in states that John Kerry won . . . and Kerry would have gotten 0 electoral votes in states that Bush won.
I guess the House of Representatives could refuse the slate of electors - depends on which party controls the Congress, I suppose.
Not really. It is still perfectly legal for an elector to be faithless and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. From what I read about NPV, this would no longer be the case.
The only time NPV is ever discussed is when the Democrats either lose an election or are on the verge of a major electoral wipeout.
Notice it was talked about in 2008, but not so much in 2004 or 2008, but now it is being talked about...
If that number is important, then there will be a reason to cheat to change it.
Imagine ballot-stuffing and Florida 2000 type shenanigans all over the country.
Maybe that's the point - create chaos.
Upstate may have had enough but downstate decides the election.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
The National Popular Vote agreement between these states has not, in my recollection, been given consent from Congress. Until such time, it is unconstitutional.
I would love to see the Massachusetts electoral college vote for a Republican. Heads would be exploding all over Cambridge and Brookline. I might even drive through Harvard Square and listen to the lamentation of their women.
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.