EDITORIAL: Blue states try raiding Electoral College

The Washington Times ^ | April 23, 2014 | Editorial

[Oldeconomybuyer]

The fondest dream of the modern Democrat is to neutralize the votes of the yokels in Peoria and put important decisions in the hands of sophisticates in places like San Francisco and Manhattan. The modern Democrats took a step closer to realizing their ambition last week when New York joined nine other liberal states with laws to undermine the Electoral College.

Blue states have been rushing to sign up for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So far, the list includes — in addition to New York — California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. All have agreed to allocate electoral votes according to the popular vote.

Upon leaving Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman what form of government had the Founders bequeathed, “a republic or a monarchy?” The wise old Ben Franklin replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

This effort is being undertaken to destroy the last vestiges of republican governance, ensuring there is no longer a republic to keep.

[BenLurkin]

Good point.

DC shouldn’t have any vote.

[Repeal The 17th]

The state legislatures will direct the electors as to how they cast their votes.

I guess rogue votes could still be cast.

I find this whole movement puzzling.

How could a state legislature think it would be a wise thing
to direct the electors to vote against the will of the voters?

[marron]

Democrats will be for it until the GOP wins the next election and New York finds itself voting Republican.

Actually, they will be for it until the first time they perceive it costing them an election.

Aside from that, I can’t imagine why any state would voluntarily dis-empower itself. Strange.

[Boogieman]

“Unfortunately that isn’t necessarily the case, especially in the long term. As soon as the electoral vote total of the states agreeing to this reaches 270 the intent of the constitution will have been subverted and America’s chief executive will be elected by popular vote. It’s worth noting that this is happening concurrently with the push for amnesty, which could add millions of immigrant (ie. Democrat) voters to the roles of blue states.”

If they have 270 electoral votes, from immigrants or otherwise, then it still doesn’t matter that they are allocating delegates according to the popular vote, or the traditional method. They’ve already got national elections sewn up at that point, with or without this law.

[Junk Silver]

“They’ve already got national elections sewn up at that point, with or without this law.”

You are correct. What I see here is Democrats preparing for a future with massive majorities in the big cities due to Amnesty. It is conceivable that a Leftist candidate could then get a majority from urban voters while the “flyover” states voted differently, thus creating an Electoral majority without a popular win.

The founders crafted this system to help keep the union intact, it troubles me to watch their intent being subverted.

[Gay State Conservative]

Assuming these Maoist states manage to enact their plan and there's an election where it actually affects the outcome it seems likely that SCOTUS would weigh in.One can only imagine which side they'd take.

[okie01]

The founders crafted this system to help keep the union intact, it troubles me to watch their intent being subverted.

There is no law, no regulation, no rule, no Constitution that the Left cannot subvert.

That is what they do!

[Gay State Conservative]

Outstanding reason #276 why secession is the only answer.

[AU72]

If in effect and Ted Cruz gets 50.01% of the popular vote, he won’t get 1 blue state elector.

[Verginius Rufus]

I'm sure the state of Massachusetts would figure out a way to give its electoral votes to the Democrat, if that would determine the winner, regardless of the compact. Democrats always play Calvinball.

This may be why the Democrats are so unconcerned about the IRS targeting of political opponents--they figure they will always have the White House, between schemes like this one and granting citizenship to illegal aliens, so they will never be the potential victims of the IRS.

[grundle]

"My prediction is this: If it appears that it will cost them an election, they will renege on the compact."

I think you are correct.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The odd part is that there isn’t even a “state-by-state” vote for President.

In each state, there are a slate of electors pledged to each candidate. The “vote” taken is for the slate of electors. Now, some states make this clear, some not so clear; some states may in fact say you are voting for a particular person, and then have laws requiring the electors be assigned based on popular vote. But in man states, not a single vote is cast for a candidate.

In fact, I wonder if there is a chance for a major play here. What if it so happens that a few big republican states are states that have clear election laws that show they are NOT voting for a candidate? And then what if the democrat loses big, but the next day files suit claiming that only 30 states actually cast a “vote” for an actual person, and that the democrat has the most of those votes, and therefore is the “national vote winner”.?

What i can’t figure out is why a person living in ANY state would want their own state to pass a law that says their own vote doesn’t count.

The legal problem with this policy is that no two states count votes the same way. Which is fine in a system where each state is simply electing their slate, because you can argue that within the state, all individuals had equal opportunity to vote for that slate.

As soon as you have the possibility of a popular vote mattering, you will open the vote to claims of 14th amendment violations, as a voter in Virginia could argue that he was denied “equal access” to vote because unlike Oregon he had to go to the polls.