Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will popular vote elect president in 2020?
The Hill ^ | April 27, 2014

Posted on 04/27/2014 12:20:23 PM PDT by SMGFan

The movement to change how presidents are elected is gaining steam and proponents of the long-stalled popular vote initiative are predicting victory by 2020.

Eleven states/jurisdictions have enacted the National Popular Vote (NPV) bill, giving the proposal 165 electoral votes — 61 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to trigger the new voting system. Legislatures that passed the law include California, Illinois, New Jersey. Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, Washington, D.C., Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed a popular vote bill into law last week.

All of these states, as well as the nation’s capital are liberal leaning, but activists note they are making progress in red states, such as Oklahoma and Nebraska. In the 2000 election, George W. Bush lost the popular vote and won the presidency. At the time, Democrats rallied behind the popular vote idea. The memory of that contested election has made many Democrats eager to jump on board, and some Republicans skeptical.

The NPV bill guarantees the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Under the bill’s interstate compact, all electorate votes from enacting states would go to the candidate with the most popular votes in the general election. The plan can only take effect when it is enacted by enough states to claim a majority of the electoral vote.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: California; US: District of Columbia; US: Hawaii; US: Illinois; US: Maryland; US: Massachusetts; US: New Jersey; US: New York; US: Rhode Island; US: Vermont; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 2020election; andrewcuomo; california; districtofcolumbia; election2020; electoralcollege; hawaii; illinois; maryland; massachusetts; nationalpopularvote; newjersey; newyork; rhodeisland; vermont; washington

1 posted on 04/27/2014 12:20:23 PM PDT by SMGFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

My prediction: there won’t be a presidential election in 2020. At least not in a country configured as the USA is now.


2 posted on 04/27/2014 12:24:31 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

A popular vote will only further reduce the significance of individual states in contrast to one big state.


3 posted on 04/27/2014 12:30:54 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

If this happens, it’s game over for the US. But then it will be time for a new game.


4 posted on 04/27/2014 12:32:42 PM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

If so, the nation will be at the end of the road.


5 posted on 04/27/2014 12:37:52 PM PDT by mulligan (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie

It will require a constitutional amendment, of course, which isn’t easy. Liberals will, naturally (or otherwise), support anything which brings us one step closer to socialism and tyranny.


6 posted on 04/27/2014 12:39:30 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

2012 was the last one


7 posted on 04/27/2014 12:43:05 PM PDT by molson209 (Blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

So,I Thought The Left Didn’t Believe In Article 5 Of The US Constitution?


8 posted on 04/27/2014 12:46:29 PM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

How about each state [50, screw DC] gets ONE vote for President. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state gets that state’s vote. At least that would negate the big liberal states giving an unfair amount of electoral votes to any one candidate. Or is that too easy?


9 posted on 04/27/2014 12:48:14 PM PDT by W. (Obama's "presidency" has been nothing but a form of welfare for his family, friends and supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Then it will be cities, cities, cities. No politician will step foot in a rural state. Not worth the effort. Who can give the most money to the most cities (and the Urban dwellers therein)? That’s what presidential elections will look like.


10 posted on 04/27/2014 12:51:06 PM PDT by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

All of those eleven states constitute one mega-Democrat state; this changes nothing thus far.


11 posted on 04/27/2014 12:52:06 PM PDT by Theodore R. (It was inevitable: Texans will always be for Cornball and George P.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: molson209

I disagree (if) the GOP starts advocating for AMERICAN JOBS.

Both parties are content with ever more jobs going overseas.

We currently run a massive and ever-growing trade deficit with Communist China. One in which the GOP and Democrats have been big players.

American politics needs American politicians to support policies which primarily build up America.

Neither party is currently building up America.

GOP get with it. Now.


12 posted on 04/27/2014 12:52:22 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: W.

It would really make VT get the big head to do that. Coolidge wouldn’t recognize the place.


13 posted on 04/27/2014 12:53:22 PM PDT by Theodore R. (It was inevitable: Texans will always be for Cornball and George P.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


14 posted on 04/27/2014 12:56:40 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

The individual states already have the constitutional authority to determine how they select their electors. No amendment is required. Nebraska and Maine grant electors based on each congressional district. If a state decides to follow the national popular vote, they may do so. However, the effect will be vigorous campaigning in CA, TX, FL and NY. And of course, it will be challenged in court should a Republican win the national vote....


15 posted on 04/27/2014 12:59:17 PM PDT by Hessian (Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

What has happened to this country?


16 posted on 04/27/2014 1:13:46 PM PDT by al_c (Obama's standing in the world has fallen so much that Kenya now claims he was born in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bandleader
"So,I Thought The Left Didn’t Believe In Article 5 Of The US Constitution?"

Article V is not involved. States already have the power to do this if they wish.

17 posted on 04/27/2014 1:32:34 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

What a waste of time. In most instances the winner of the popular vote IS the winner of the electoral college. As a matter of fact, the Electoral College causes a landslide in some instances where the popular vote is actually much closer.

The electoral college protects the small states. Without it there would be an uprising from many les populous states.


18 posted on 04/27/2014 1:33:30 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: W.
"Or is that too easy?"

I wouldn't say that, exactly. Have you started a tax-exempt organization to push this yet? ;)

19 posted on 04/27/2014 1:35:55 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Liberals are always trying to rob the little guys, and the latest is this. We need to stop the popular vote drive, and reform election laws.


20 posted on 04/27/2014 1:39:52 PM PDT by ExCTCitizen (I'm ExCTCitizen and I approve this reply. If it does offend Libs, I'm NOT sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

They just don’t want another 2000 where Gore “clearly’ had more votes, so for them it is well worth it. But the closeness of 2000 is the reason to oppose their plan.


21 posted on 04/27/2014 1:43:17 PM PDT by SMGFan (Sarah Michelle Gellar is now on twitter @RealSMG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

Since when does anything the liberals want to do require changing the constitution? The king’s word is law.


22 posted on 04/27/2014 1:45:47 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Under the current system the Democrats only need to win in 14 states (all won by Obama in 2012) plus the District of Columbia to get to the required 270 electoral votes.
California: 55 Electoral votes (60% Obama in 2012)
New York: 29 (63% Obama)
Florida: 29 (50% Obama)
Illinois: 20 (58% Obama)
Pennsylvania: 20 (52% Obama)
Ohio: 18 (51% Obama)
Michigan: 16 (54% Obama)
New Jersey: 14 (58% Obama)
Virginia: 13 (51% Obama)
Washington: 12 (53% Obama)
Massachusetts: 11 (61% Obama)
Maryland: 10 (62% Obama)
Minnesota: 10 (53% Obama)
Wisconsin: 10 (53% Obama)
District of Columbia: 3 (91% Obama)
Total: 270 via 14 states & D.C.


23 posted on 04/27/2014 1:47:44 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Under the current system the Democrats only need to win in 14 states (all won by Obama in 2012) plus the District of Columbia to get to the required 270 electoral votes.
California: 55 Electoral votes (60% Obama in 2012)
New York: 29 (63% Obama)
Florida: 29 (50% Obama)
Illinois: 20 (58% Obama)
Pennsylvania: 20 (52% Obama)
Ohio: 18 (51% Obama)
Michigan: 16 (54% Obama)
New Jersey: 14 (58% Obama)
Virginia: 13 (51% Obama)
Washington: 12 (53% Obama)
Massachusetts: 11 (61% Obama)
Maryland: 10 (62% Obama)
Minnesota: 10 (53% Obama)
Wisconsin: 10 (53% Obama)
District of Columbia: 3 (91% Obama)
Total: 270 via 14 states & D.C.


24 posted on 04/27/2014 1:56:08 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Sorry for the double post.


25 posted on 04/27/2014 1:56:47 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

So democrats ARE planning illegals granted amnesty to get the vote even if they aren’t granted full citizenship right off the bat. Illegals granted amnesty will be given the right to vote, legal or not, then rushed through before anytime to recount or verify actual legal votes. The country is toast. Ride the wave and stay under the radar.


26 posted on 04/27/2014 1:56:54 PM PDT by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

“It will require a constitutional amendment, of course, which isn’t easy. Liberals will, naturally (or otherwise), support anything which brings us one step closer to socialism and tyranny.”

Republicans should counter with my idea. Vote by county. Every county gets one point. Most points win the states electoral votes. And you do not have to change the constitution because it it a states issue.

It also puts up a firewall in that if one county has 150% of the vote like Cuyohoga county, then who cares? It’s only 1 point. No one is disenfranchised.

Best part about this is the majority of States are run by Republican governors and in competing methods of voting, this will win the publics trust.


27 posted on 04/27/2014 2:28:35 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz ("Heck of a reset there, Hillary")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

This will work until a republican gets a majority.

It will be hilarious to see how fast they change the laws back.


28 posted on 04/27/2014 2:31:42 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al_c

We have become more interested in what the owner of a sports team thinks of their customers than we do about securing ourselves from the tyranny of the majority.


29 posted on 04/27/2014 2:33:34 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

This “reform” is going to blow up in the faces of the Demagogic Party, because California alone has unexpressed Pubbie votes, due to the fact that the state is heavily blue. Turnout in CA is also lower because they vote later, after the election may appear to have been decided.

The result of the change will be increased Pubbie turnout, and given the sheer size of the state, a boost in Pubbie vote will tip the POTUS to the Republican candidate. Partly this applies to NY state as well.

The Demwits are pushing this change because they think it will benefit their party — but once it tips the election toward the Republican Party, they’ll be screaming to overturn the results that they engineered.

This change to the way the Electoral College awards votes is entirely legal and Constitutional, and it is coming.

Thanks SMGFan.


30 posted on 04/27/2014 2:51:44 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

to add some detail to Nero Germanicus’ post:

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html

10 million eligible didn’t show up in California in 2012; 6 million eligible didn’t show up in New York; 90 million eligible nationwide didn’t show.


31 posted on 04/27/2014 3:11:03 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hessian
The individual states already have the constitutional authority to determine how they select their electors. No amendment is required. Nebraska and Maine grant electors based on each congressional district. If a state decides to follow the national popular vote, they may do so. However, the effect will be vigorous campaigning in CA, TX, FL and NY. And of course, it will be challenged in court should a Republican win the national vote....

Not so fast - in the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000, SCOTUS cited ample SCOTUS precedence that you cannot value one voter's vote over another.

The NPV law will allow the majority's votes within a state to stand and the state's electoral votes are awarded to him, but only if that candidate wins the NPV. If the candidate loses the NPV, the will of the state's voters is overturned and the electoral vote is awarded to the other candidate.

From the Bush v. Gore decision:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College ... History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter ... "

"... The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “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 v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964)."

This would inevitably be litigated at SCOTUS and two questions come to mind:

1. Can a state allow an outside influence to affect its elections [ie: allowing the NPV to affect its selection of the electoral votes]?

2. Can a state take away its citizen's majority votes to after they have selected the candidate of their choice?

Many constitutional scholars believe that the NPV will be declared to be unconstitutional.

32 posted on 04/27/2014 3:32:58 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Well, at least they did come up with Vermont carry. Nice!


33 posted on 04/27/2014 3:48:18 PM PDT by W. (Obama's "presidency" has been nothing but a form of welfare for his family, friends and supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

No, but it sure would piss off the left! Oh, boy! Whoo!


34 posted on 04/27/2014 3:50:30 PM PDT by W. (Obama's "presidency" has been nothing but a form of welfare for his family, friends and supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fhayek
"No politician will step foot in a rural state. Not worth the effort.

Almost there since the 2010 census. Once Texas turns blue due to immigration (illegal or otherwise), flyover country will no longer matter except for the primaries.

35 posted on 04/27/2014 4:53:23 PM PDT by buckalfa (Tilting at Windmills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hessian
The individual states already have the constitutional authority to determine how they select their electors.

Yes, but IMO what the are doing is unconstitutional because it violates the spirit and intent of the Constitution.

36 posted on 04/27/2014 5:48:37 PM PDT by foxfield (Support the Tea Party. The Tea Party supports you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan; 3D-JOY; abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; alisasny; ALlRightAllTheTime; ..

And the butt-[censored] of our Constitution continues . . .

Combined General and Maryland “Freak State” PING!


37 posted on 04/27/2014 7:29:42 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (The PASSING LANE is for PASSING, not DAWDLING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan; BillyBoy

Nope.

Only solid rat states have passed that stupid pact.

I challenge them to change it and have it go in effect in 2016 rather than whenever enough states pass it (which will be never).

I’d love to see Hawaii and Vermont forced to cast their electoral votes for a Republican, should one win the 2016 popular vote.


38 posted on 04/28/2014 12:29:19 AM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Don’t know why they need to go to the trouble of pushing this through, as 2012 showed that they have already perfected their voting fraud operations.


39 posted on 04/28/2014 6:42:24 AM PDT by Bigg Red (1 Pt 1: As he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson