Posted on 04/01/2019 5:24:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ronald Reagan was reportedly fond of referencing the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Monahan’s admonition, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Today, that would most particularly include opponents of the growing drive to enact the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award 270 electoral votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Of all the myths conjured up by naysayers to try and torpedo the compact, perhaps the most egregious portray the measure as either unconstitutional or an effort to eliminate the Electoral College. Both are patently false.
The compact isn’t the same thing as the national popular vote that the 2020 presidential candidates are calling for. The compact is 100 percent constitutional and consistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers, who explicitly gave states the authority under the Constitution to form agreements among themselves for any number of reasons. There is no issue with the states usurping the power of the federal government.
Moreover, while some reform advocates argue for elimination of the Electoral College through a long and cumbersome effort to amend the Constitution, the compact preserves the Electoral College intact, exactly as the Constitution specifies. In fact, the compact states that if the Electoral College is done away with, the compact goes away.
Under the Constitution, states are free to award their electors in any way they see fit. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution either mentioning or mandating the current winner-take-all system by which most states award their electoral votes. The Founding Fathers never approved it. By entering the compact, the states agree to direct their Electoral College votes through a popular vote.
The myths and falsehoods aren’t limited to the Constitution and the Electoral College. Another falsehood imagines the votes of large, populous states running roughshod over smaller, less populated states. This is patently untrue. More people live in rural areas and small towns than in the big cities. If Republicans direct their campaign efforts in the former areas, they should be able to win the popular vote, since they dominate those areas. Right now, they direct their energy at the swing states instead.
Under the current system, we don’t so much elect the president of the United States as we do the president of the battleground states. The 12 states where the candidates spend virtually all of their time — and money — chasing blocks of electoral votes that can swing back and forth every four years. The other 38 states and the District of Columbia — encompassing roughly 70 percent of the population — are ignored because they are so faithful in voting either Republican or Democrat every four years.
In an election fought under the compact, the 12-state election model becomes a 50-state contest in which candidates are compelled to chase down every single voter in every nook and cranny of the nation. The states are essentially working with other states to make their votes more relevant.
Oregon is a great example of why the compact is needed. Over the last eight presidential elections from 1988 to 2016, a total of 5,429,496 Oregonians cast their popular votes for the Republican ticket. And in all of that time, their efforts have failed to produce one single GOP electoral vote. Because eight out of eight times, the Democratic ticket won Oregon’s popular vote and all of its electoral votes.
Under the compact, voters gain a direct voice over the disposition of the 270 electoral votes. No voter in any state would have their vote cancelled out because they didn’t go along with the majority of others in their state. Every voter would have their vote counted directly toward their choice for president. And the presidential candidate who gets the most popular votes would become president.
Florida is gradually becoming more Democratic, as Puerto Ricans move into the state and overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Republicans are going to lose this swing state and will be unable to win presidential elections through the existing system much longer. It’s a good time to switch. The movement in support of the compact is gaining momentum with Delaware and New Mexico having just passed bills joining it for a projected total of 189 of the 270 electoral votes necessary to switch to the compact (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). It has bipartisan support because Democrats erroneously think large cities will end up deciding elections. Republicans need to do their homework on this issue before blindly repeating falsehoods.
The crux of the issue today. NPV is perfectly fine and will remain fine until it is challenged and dealt with. I wonder if that means it will continue to weave its way into the national discourse until some harm occurs, and only then, after it hurts a state or party, gets challenged and overturned (by courts or by the same states that entered into this illegal compact).
So you disagree with the Founding Fathers?
It’s definitely unconstitutional.
Why must we keep going over this on FR?
It is Constitutional AND stupid.
That’s the hook that lets the NPV continue to fester.
However, the Constitution is a collection of many clauses, and while NPV may pass muster with the one you cite, it does not with the compact clause.
To be constitutional, laws must be coherent with the entire Constitution, not just selected parts.
Voting will be meaningless because my vote in Delaware will be given away. The article is flawed in its concept- that we are a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, if we can keep it. The Compact is an invitation to secession.
If that is what the compact does then it should be shot down. However, it would make more sense if the popular vote in a state that votes overwhelmingly for candidate 'A' be required to give all of their electoral votes to that candidate. It should not depend at all on the nationwide popular vote...which is what I think you are saying it does.
“So you disagree with the Founding Fathers?”
Did you read my response? Article 1, Section 10 explicitly forbids States from making Compacts without the consent of Congress. Look it up.
L
As with almost all the analysis the author just assumes a de facto move to a popular vote for presidency would retain the 2 party system. There is no historical evidence to support this. In countries with a one vote past the post presidential system there are at least three parties or alliances. Chile before Pincohet had a one election past the post president and there were three parties. The Marxist Allende won the 1970 election with just under 37% of the vote. Mexico has the same system and the winning candidate usually wins with under 50% of the vote perhaps as low as 35%.
A computer program will be built that tracks all voter ID registered in all 50 States
Once that is implemented will so agree to a Popular Vote
Well, since "voting for President" is not provided for under the Constitution, there is no Federal entity with the authority to oversee any processes which would be necessary.
You bring up a good point. Who will count the votes? Rachel Maddow? Wolf Blitzer?
Even more important: Who will certify the result? In the event of a dispute, who will investigate, and audit, the supposed "national popular vote"?
It is piquant that the first word in the title is Fact and the article only contains poorly reasoned Opinions. I am surprised to see this kind of article from Townhall.
These people forget there is already a chamber filled by popular vote totals from each State, the House. The President needs to be cognizant of the needs and special circumstances of the people of all the States not just the populous ones. California isn’t worth more than Delaware in the fabric of America.
That same principal is the reason why every State has two senators. States are governing units joined in a compact and all States are equal.
Voter fraud will no longer be necessary under this proposal.
All that will be necessary is for NY and California to deny Trump, or anyone else they choose, placement on their ballots.
Since there is no constitutional requirement for a Presidential popular vote election in the first place, and since States are free to appoint their Electors however their Legislature chooses to do so, I'm sure they could do this.
Trump got 7.5 million votes in NY and California in 2016. Prevent those votes from entering a mythical "national popular vote", and you guarantee the outcome.
No fraud needed.
“The Constitution pretty much gives state legislatures a blank check when it comes to determining how a state’s EVs are cast.”
Not true. A state legislature cannot award its electoral votes based on race, or gender. It could not pass a law awarding all its electoral votes based on a single party being eligible. I say awarding electoral votes based on how voters cast ballots violates the guarantee of a republic form of government because the electors no longer represent that state but the several states.
Interesting....so the position of these electoral college anarchists is that a sufficient number of states legislatures could be persuaded to require their electoral votes to be cast for the republican in the race . . . . or for the white candidate in the race?
If a state wants to do that they can.
I just don’t understand the appeal for a smaller state to render itself almost completely irrelevant......to demand that their state reflect the values and concerns of NYC or LA or the densely populated Northeast Corridor rather than the values and concerns of the locals.
Think you’re ignored, taken for granted and kept permanently at the back of the line when it comes to the federal government doing anything that would benefit your community now? Just go ahead and sign up to allow the Left Coast and Northeast Corridor do your presidential voting for you and see what that gets you. Go ahead and undo the Connecticut Compromise and give up your Senators while you’re at it. Give those two coastal strips even more say over your lives. I’m sure that will work out just peachy for you Wyoming......Arkansas,.........Indiana,......Utah,.....Nebraska.....Mississippi...
If this is constitutional, then why couldn’t the far left liberal states just agree to give their EC votes to the dem candidate no matter who wins the state or the popular vote?
If they really cared about voter intent then they would back awarding electors by congressional district results. Then each elector would cast their votes in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their assigned constituency.
Seriously? Four stinking seconds?
Hogwash, and the author knows it. States such as California and New York which are so faithful in voting Democrat every four years get a lot of attention from candidates because that's also where the campaign money is.
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.