Posted on 02/18/2019 6:14:05 PM PST by george76
Electoral College advocates see a window of opportunity to eliminate America’s unique presidential election system. They are seizing the moment, working to implement change before anyone realizes what happened.
They even think they can do it without a constitutional amendment.
National Popular Vote (NPV) is a California-based effort that has been running under the radar. Its proponents ask state legislatures to agree to an interstate compact. By the terms of that simple contract, each participating state would agree to allocate its entire slate of electors to the winner of the national popular vote. This is a change from the current system in which states award electors based on the internal state popular vote.
NPV claims it is simply using constitutional provisions in a unique way. In reality, the compact would effectively eliminate the Electoral College.
NPV’s plan goes into effect when states representing 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to the compact. To date, 11 states plus D.C. have approved the measure. Those states hold 172 electoral votes among them. NPV hopes to reach 250 electors by the end of the year. They would need just 20 more during the early months of 2020 to put their plan into action before the presidential election.
The idea is gaining steam. The Colorado Senate recently approved the idea, and a House committee is considering the matter this morning. Similarly, the New Mexico House recently approved NPV, and a Senate committee is expected to take up the matter soon. More efforts can soon be expected in places like New Hampshire, Oregon, Minnesota, and Virginia, where the legislation is pending.
NPV proponents rely heavily on simple sound bites such as “every vote equal” or “one person, one vote.” The sound bites are certainly appealing: They sound fair-minded and democratic. Ironically, though, NPV would ensure the precise opposite of its stated goal. If its compact goes into effect, NPV would guarantee unequal treatment of voters.
Some of the reasons are obvious. Others less so.
First, small to mid-sized states can never receive equal treatment under a national popular vote system. How can they? Candidates have limited time and resources. They will not work to build support across state and regional lines without an Electoral College to force the subject. Consider that Hillary Clinton won fully 20 percent of her individual votes from only two states: New York and California. The mistake cost her the election. But without the Electoral College, she would be rewarded for such behavior, and candidates would be sure to double down on the strategy. New Hampshire, Wyoming, and other small states would easily be lost in the shuffle.
NPV guarantees unequal treatment of voters for a second, less obvious reason: NPV is state legislation, not a constitutional amendment. States participating in NPV cannot tell non-NPV states what to do. Thus, NPV cannot authorize creation of a single, national election code to govern everyone nationwide. Instead, some people will be given more time to vote, simply because of their state of residence. Others might have an easier time getting an absentee ballot than those in neighboring states. Some people might have ballots that contain more third-party options.
Today, no one cares if Texans have more time to early vote than voters in Colorado. A ballot cast in Texas can’t change the identity of Colorado’s electors. But with NPV in place, a ballot cast in Texas could dictate the outcome in Colorado. Suddenly, it matters a great deal that Texans had more opportunities to vote.
If the most basic rule of democracy is that the same set of laws should apply equally to everyone in the same election pool, then NPV will violate this rule egregiously, every presidential election year, without fail.
Don’t worry. Someone, somewhere will file an Equal Protection claim. The litigation will make Florida 2000 look easy.
NPV guarantees unfair treatment of voters in one final way: It acts as if “consent of the governed” is unimportant, pretending that a simple interstate compact can be used in lieu of the constitutional amendment process. “We the People of the United States” consented to a Constitution that creates a state-by-state presidential election system. The Electoral College is just one of many checks and balances in our constitutional republic, preventing a bare, emotional, or tyrannical majority from running roughshod over the rest of the country. “We the People” agreed that this process can be changed only if three-quarters of the states agree. Yet NPV attempts to skirt this process entirely. It is prepared to radically change the presidential election system, whether “We the People” consent or not.
Apparently, NPV doesn’t care so much about fairness after all.
"The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."
We will never add the votes from states together because the President is not the President of the people, he is president of 50 STATES. Donald Trump is President Of the United States, not president of the united people. The latter would be an entirely different form of government.
Good point. Also the impact of block voting or special interest voting is diminished by the same reasoning.
What is killing the fair vote is
early absentee. and votes that are
mysteriously found after voting
deadlines. The latter should not be
counted. Didn’t vote in time? Too
bad. New Mexico southern district
is a prime example. 3500 votes
which decided an election, we’re
counted after the deadline. It’s
very easy to cheat the system.
<>We have a perfectly good Constitution, which has served us well for over two centuries;<>
Then why was it amended 27 times? What about that black-robed cabal, the Scotus, that amends the Constitution when it pleases?
The Compact is already in operation for the states that have agreed to it. I believe there are 13 of them? The goal is to make the big cities all powerful electorally and to marginalize flyover country.
It is not only the lower classes who vote for the Band C. It is generally the economic and societal drones which includes a lot of wealthy unproductive scions and trust funders. It also includes productive people who made their money too fast and have no idea where it came from. It just fell out of the sky on them. It was so easy that poor people must be poor because other people are stealing all the manna.
Looking a little deeper, the first purpose of the EC was to elevate only men of national stature, wisdom, experience and public virtue to the executive office. And as you imply, the winner would assume office without any political debts whatsoever to a factional party or divisive segment of society; his duty was to “serve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Donald Trump - The Echo of our Framers' Uncorrupted President.
The Uniform Commercial Code is a fifty-state compact in all but name.
Those who think the NPV will be shot down on the basis of being an unauthorized compact will be in for a rude awakening. From precedent, the Scotus LOVES democracy, the popular element to governing. It loves it so much that it elevated the franchise to what it calls a “fundamental right.” The states can allocate their electoral votes as they see fit and no court will stop them.
A popular vote would result in a system very similar to the Hunger Games with the large cities ruling over the rural areas.
The Compact, by its own terms, goes into effect when approved by enough States equally a majority of the electoral votes for President (270 or more). It's about a 100 short of that. So it is merely a proposal right now.
It is not a capital C Compact yet but it is a compact in that the states that have entered into it intend to adhere to it even if no others follow suit.
Then California, New York and the rest will find some reason to void the law they made just to avoid voting the same way as flyover country.
What, for example, are the recount rules?
What if no one gets a majority of the votes?
What if multiple parties now spring up to ensure that no one ever gets a majority vote?
‘And that is exactly what will happen in any state where a Republican presidential candidate wins the national popular vote but loses an NPV state.’
there are two chances for a Pub winning the popular vote going forward; none, and less than none...last happened, 2004, with an exceptionally weak and little known Dem running against an incumbent, and that margin was 3 million votes from a total of 121 million, .024 percent of the vote total...
‘Then California, New York and the rest will find some reason to void the law they made’
they have not ‘made’ any law; this compact will not take effect until sufficient states totalling 270 electors have signed on...
Basically, after delegating to state voters their state legislature’s power to appoint cast their electoral votes for president, they are now setting up some conditions to under which they would rescind that delegation and have the state legislature ignore the will of the majority of its voters.
So why not skip that charade and just rescind the delegation altogether, and leave voters out of this process, as was done when our country first started? Either delegate that power or take it back, so the voters in your state know whether or not their vote truly matters.
NPV opens EVERY state to out-of-state challenges to electoral procedure lawsuits and investigations of fraud, until every other state is satisfied.
Think about the ramifications of that, assuming we can find any R’s with testiculars.
Without the Electoral College, the Constitution would not have been ratified, and the “United States” of America would not exist.
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.